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