610 likes | 753 Views
CLEANED LVCs. Towards a generic framework. Livestock – the BIG numbers. 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
E N D
CLEANED LVCs Towards a generic framework
Livestock – the BIG numbers • 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 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 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 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
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)
Value Chain Research Life Cycle Analysis Farming Systems Research Nutrient cycling Global assessments 3rd IPCC report EU Nitrate Directive Livestock Revolution Livestock’s Long Shadow 1991 1999 2006 2001
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 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 Consumers
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
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 • Review frameworks • Review LCA • E.A. stakeholder workshop
Review Environmental Frameworks
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 AgBalancescoredsustainability 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
LCA value-chain coverage No. Publications N= 70 2000 2005 2010 2013 Feed Production Livestock fish man. Retail Distrib. Consump.Disposal Process -ing 3 38 38 4 4 5 7 7
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
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
Why focus on production stages? Highest percentage of impact observed pre-farmgate *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%.
Building Blocks • Four dimensions • Value chain modules • Spatial scales • Time steps • Environmental impact categories • Step-wise procedure • Setting the baseline • Typologies • Value chain description • Environmental baseline • Ex-ante assessment • Environmental impact • Out-scaling