CLEANED LVCs
Towards a generic framework
Livestock – the BIG numbers
–
17 billion domestic animals globally!
–
30% Earth’s ice-free surface occupied by livestock systems
(SOFA 2009)
(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 Economic Benefits
–
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
600 million Poor Depend on Livestock
4
Thornton et al. 2002, revised 2009
Livestock and Nutrition
–
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
Consumption of Milk and Meat
Europe
SSA
Meat
10%
3%
Dairy
11%
3%
Herrero et al 2008a
Per capita kcal intake livestock products
(FAO: SOFA 2011)
Most growth in consumption in Asia and Latin America
Global Livestock Revolution
Meat production
Feed crop use
Maize
Poultry
Pork
Soy
Beef
Wheat
( Mton )
(FAOstat 2012)
Richer People Consume more Meat
FAO: SOFA2011
8
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
NPK
NPK
NPK
•
•
•
•
•
•
Grain legumes
Green manures
Agroforestry
Fodder
legumes
Manure
Fertilizers
(Rowe, 2003)
Farming Systems
Research
Global
assessments
Value Chain
Research
Life Cycle Analysis
Nutrient cycling
3rd IPCC
report
EU Nitrate
Directive
1991
Livestock
Revolution
1999
2001
Livestock’s Long
Shadow
2006
Integrated assessment of farming
systems essential – at all levels
– from global to local!
Herrero et al, Science 2010
Value chains and institutions
Approach: Solution-driven R4D to achieve impact
Consumers
Major intervention with development partners
Value chain development team + research partners
Strategic CRP 3.7 Cross-cutting Platforms
• Technology Generation
• Market Innovation
• Targeting & Impact
INTERVENTIONS TO
SCALE OUT REGIONALLY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
PUBLIC GOODS
Trade-offs and synergies
income
1
external inputs
0.5
food security
0
water use
GHG
mixed
pastoral
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)
Agricultural Development Team
Monika Zurek
Kate Schneider
New ex-ante
environmental framework
to secure
sustainable livestock production
Three
core
partners
CLEANED members
An Notenbaert, ILRI (CIAT)
Mario Herrero, CSIRO
Mats Lannerstad, SEI & ILRI
Simon Fraval, ILRI
Simon Mugatha, ILRI
Ylva Ran, SEI
Birthe Paul, CIAT
Jennie Barron, SEI
Eric Kemp-Benedict, SEI
Silvia Silvestri, ILRI
CLEANED LVCs
Comprehensive Livestock Environmental
Assessment
for Improved Nutrition, a Secured Environment
and Sustainable Development
along
Livestock Value Chains
CLEANED LVCs
Three Modules over 18 months
Module I:
Review of existing environmental frameworks
Formulate 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 study
Final consultation with stakeholders & experts
Three Modules over 18 months
Module I:
Review of existing environmental frameworks
Formulate 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 study
Final consultation with stakeholders & experts
Module III: A pilot study on smallholder dairy
……value chains in East Africa
Background work
1. Review frameworks
2. Review LCA
3. E.A. stakeholder workshop
Review
Environmental Frameworks
Impact categories used by frameworks
Number of frameworks assessing impact categories
25
20
GHG emissions/air quality
Water quantity
15
Land use
Energy consumption
Biodiversity and plant protection
Soil use
10
Water quality
Nutrient flows (N and P)
Resource consumption
Eco-toxicity potential
5
0
Waste
N=35
Outcomes
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
RISE sustainability polygon
AgBalance scored sustainability diagram
Positioning of frameworks
Frameworks differ in terms of audience, complexity/data intensity, spatial scales,
indicators covered
Lessons
• 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
Review LCAs
of livestock and fish
No. Publications
LCA value-chain coverage
N= 70
Feed
Production
3
2000
2005
Livestock
fish man.
Process
-ing
38
38
2010
4
4
2013
Retail
Distrib.
Consump.
Disposal
5
77
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-makers
Researchers on dairy livestock chains
Farmers representative
Aim:
To identify key local challenges and environmental
impacts in dairy development
Presenters
Charles Mutagwaba
Dr. Grace Cheserek
Dr. Clavery Tungaraza
Dr. Robert Otsyina
Gregory Sikumba,
Luke Kessei
Peter Bos
Tanzanian Dairy Board
Eldoret University;
Lead consultant: Environmental Impact
Assessment (NEMA)
Faculty of science, Sokoine University of
Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania
Private Sector/Development Associates
ltd
ILRI/EADD,
Senior Assistant Director of Livestock
Production; Department of Livestock
RE Advisor SNV
Most important environmental issues along the dairy value chain
Feed
Water
Animal production
Land degradation
Soil fertility
Overgrazing
Deforestation
Overgrazing
GHG emissions
Water use and
pollution
Overuse of resources
Inbreeding
Dry seasons
Intentional
burning
Nutrient mining
Biodiversity
Carbon stock
depletion
GHGs
Rats invasion
(storage)
GHG emissions
Zoonosis
Nutrient load
Biodiversity
Nutrient loss
Waste management
related to animal
husbandry and
breeding
Aestethic destruction
Marketing
GHG
emissions/Energy
Waste management
Processing
GHG
emissions/Energy
Waste
Consumption
Waste
Water pollution
Water use/pollution
Air pollution and
odour
Gender
Human health
Pollution
Frequency of key environmental issues identified by
stakeholders along the value chain
25
Frequency
20
freq
# issues
15
10
5
0
Value Chain Stages
• 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 Users
Audience:
National programs and policymakers
Other 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
Why focus on production stages?
Highest percentage of impact observed pre-farmgate
Begtsson,
Seddon,
2013
GWP
Acidification
Eutrophication
POCP
Ozone layer depletion
Water depletion /
footprint*
Abiotic depletion
Ridoutt,
Pfister,
2010
Pasta
sauce /
Peanut
M&Ms
Thevenot
et al.,
2013
Verge et
al., 2013
Verge et
al., 2013
Chicken
Milk
Yogurt
85
92
97
84
62
-
89.67
97.73
98.22
-
86.9
-
72.2
-
-
-
97
-
-
-
34.64ƚ
-
-
-
-
-
-
Berlin,
2002
Davis et al., Fantin et
2010
al., 2012
Chicken
Cheese
Pork chop
(conventio
nal)
Milk
81.39
-
94.38
98.98
99.36
93.7
-
56.35^
96.44
-
75.08
-
80.84
87.12
-
Ecopoints
*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%.
The Generic Framework
Building Blocks
• Four dimensions
1.
2.
3.
4.
Value chain modules
Spatial scales
Time steps
Environmental impact categories
• Step-wise procedure
A. 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
Dimension 2: Spatial scales
Global
Regional/National
Landscape/Catchment
Farm
Field
Dimension 3: Time steps
• Current
• 1 year
– E.g., water quality and availability
• 5 years
– E.g., soil fertility
• 50 years
– E.g., climate change
Dimension 4:
Environmental Impact Categories
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
Step-wise procedure
A. Setting the baseline
1.
2.
3.
Typologies
Value chain description
Environmental baseline
B. Ex-ante assessment
1.
2.
Environmental impact
Out-scaling
Step A1: Typologies
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
Local relevance of global livestock
system classifications is limited,
large uncertainties
(Sere & Steinfeld, 1996)
(Tittonell et al., 2007)
Functional farm typologies
can be too site specific, outscaling difficult
Subtypes determined from hh survey – e.g. market orientation, off-farm income, income from livestock, land
size, resource endowment…
Type 1
Type 2
Type 4
Type 3
Planted fodder
Grazing
Relative use of feed
Communa Private
l
Crop residues
Grazed Cut-carry
Opportunistic feed
Tethered Cut-carry
Supplements
Level of intensification
Agroecology
Population density
Market access
Step A2: VC description
Home consumption rate
Sales rates
Etc
INFORMAL
MILK PRODUCTION
CONSUMER
CC
TRADER
PROCESSOR
Different types of
markets
Step A: Baseline setting
Location
Typology
Type 1
E.g. grazing,
Type 2
Mixed extensive
Type n
Mixed intensive
VC description
E.g. grazing / rural to rural market
Extensive / rural to rural market
Intensive / rural to rural market
Intensive / rural to urban market
Environmental Baselines
Step 2: Ex-Ante Impact Assessment
Intervention description
+ ex-ante impact assessment