1 / 61

CLEANED LVCs

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

lonato
Download Presentation

CLEANED LVCs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CLEANED LVCs Towards a generic framework

  2. 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)

  3. 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

  4. 600 million Poor Depend on Livestock Thornton et al. 2002, revised 2009

  5. 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

  6. Per capita kcal intake livestock products (FAO: SOFA 2011) Most growth in consumption in Asia and Latin America

  7. Global Livestock Revolution Meat production Feed crop use Maize Poultry Pork Soy Beef Wheat ( Mton ) (FAOstat 2012)

  8. Richer People Consume more Meat FAO: SOFA2011

  9. 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

  10. NPK NPK NPK • Grain legumes • Green manures • Agroforestry • Fodder legumes • Manure • Fertilizers (Rowe, 2003)

  11. 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

  12. Integrated assessment of farming systems essential – at all levels – from global to local! Herrero et al, Science 2010

  13. 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

  14. Trade-offs and synergies

  15. 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

  16. BMGF Initiative

  17. “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)

  18. Agricultural Development Team • Monika Zurek • Kate Schneider • New ex-ante • environmental framework • to secure • sustainable livestock production

  19. Three core partners

  20. 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

  21. CLEANED LVCs

  22. Comprehensive Livestock Environmental Assessment • for Improved Nutrition, a Secured Environment • and Sustainable Development • along • Livestock Value Chains • CLEANED LVCs

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. Module III: A pilot study on smallholder dairy ……value chains in East Africa

  26. Background work • Review frameworks • Review LCA • E.A. stakeholder workshop

  27. Review Environmental Frameworks

  28. Impact categories used by frameworks N=35

  29. 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

  30. Positioning of frameworks Frameworks differ in terms of audience, complexity/data intensity, spatial scales, indicators covered

  31. 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

  32. Review LCAs • of livestock and fish

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. LCA limitations • Data intensity • Accurate representation vs. simplicity of communication • Site specific nature of some impacts

  36. Stakeholder workshop Dairy East Africa

  37. Stakeholders: • Local policy/decision-makers • Researchers on dairy livestock chains • Farmers representative • Aim: • To identify key local challenges and environmental impacts in dairy development

  38. Presenters

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. 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

  42. Rationale for our proposal

  43. 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

  44. 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

  45. CLEANED – All, but less complex

  46. 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%.

  47. The Generic Framework

  48. 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

More Related