Upload
ilri
View
478
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Introducing the CLEANED framework for environmental ex-ante impact assessment of livestock value chains
Mats Lannerstad (ILRI), An Notenbaert (CIAT), Birthe Paul (CIAT), Simon Fraval (ILRI), Ylva Ran (SEI), Jeanne Morris (SEI), Jessica Koge (CIAT), Simon Mugatha (ILRI), Edmund Githoro (ILRI), Jennie Barron (SEI), Mario
Herrero (CSIRO)
CLEANED validation, synthesis and planning workshop, Machakos, Kenya, 30-31 October 2014
Review other environmental frameworks: 1. Environmental assessment too complex, or too simple 2. Landscape-medium term missing
Ran et al 2014
Expe
rt k
now
...
Fiel
d
Farm
Land
scap
e
Regi
onal
Glob
al
Shor
t <1
yr
Med
ium
1-1
...
Long
>10
yr
Tota
l0
5
10
15
20
25
30
General
Modelling
Indicator specific
Num
ber o
f fra
mew
orks
Fra
val e
t al,
2014
Number of studies for lifecycle analysis approach
2000 2005 2010 2013
Review livestock value chain -LCA studies:1. Rapid increase in livestock studies of last few years2. Few studies along entire livestock value chain3. Single impact approach (eg only greenhouse gas)
Greatest environmental impacts= 1 + 2
Environmental impacts along value chains
5
3. ‘Multiplied’ by losses/waste, along the value chain
all the way to actual consumption 1. Feed cultivation/
Grazing land man.
2. Livestock rearing, including manure man.
Building blocks1. Value chain concept in local context 2. Stocks and flows across scales3. Environmental impact and pathways 4. Key indicators
Step-wise procedureA. Setting the baselineB. Ex-ante assessment
The CLEANED framework
• Not all value chains look the same
• CLEANED modules flexible to be combined for local context value chain
• Waste management stretching along the value chain
• Emphasis on production stages in the chain, with less detail in the later stages
Value Chain Concept
8
1. Water availability and quality:• Appropriation of available resources• Change in soil water holding capacity• Change in water quality
2. Soil and land health:• Soil erosion• Change in soil organic matter• Change in soil fertility
3. GHG emissions:• Total emissions of methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide
4. Biodiversity loss:• Species diversity• Landscape multi-functionality
Four environmental dimensionsand key indicators for each
Process flow of CLEANED
Scenario of change: intensification – no land use change
• 25% increase in animal numbers• Increase in fodder, concentrates and rice straw• Fertilizer input - 100% increase• Crop yield - increase of 50%• 50% reduction of waste at the transport/processing stage
Scenario1Fodder
%grass/residues/other
Livestock population
LU
Milk yield l/yr
/livestock unit
Tentative results: Land-soil1. Absolute: Increase in nutrient mining and soil loss
2. Productivity: efficiency compared to milk gain:Gains across the board
Kg N
/100
0l/y
rKg
/ha
/yr
Intensive Semi-intensive Extensive
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
BaselineScenario 1
Intensive Semi-intensive Extensive
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
BaselineScenario 1
Intensive Semi-intensive Extensive
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
BaselineScenario 1
Intensive Semi-intensive Extensive
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Series1Scenario 1
N balance
soil loss
N loss / quantity milk
soil loss / quantity milk
Baseline
Fodder basket
ET/MAR
m3m-3, %
ET/feed
m3ton-1
ET/milk
m3ton-1
ET mm/year
/ per system
Intensive 31 960 44 300 490
Semi-intensive 28 1 180 102 500 580
Extensive 64 1 560 160 800 650
Scenario
Intensive 26 1 160 12 500 430Semi-intensive 25 1 250 27 400 520Extensive 56 1 560 33 000 620
Tentative results: Water1. Absolute terms Impact low/none 2. Productivity gain across the board
ET: actual evapotranspiration (m3 per case study area per year)MAR: mean annual rainfall (m3 per case study area per year)
Baseline
Fodder basket
ET/MAR
m3m-3, %
ET/feed
m3ton-1
ET/milk
m3ton-1
ET mm/year
/ per system
Intensive 31 960 44 300 490
Semi-intensive 28 1 180 102 500 580
Extensive 64 1 560 160 800 650
Scenario
Intensive 26 1 160 12 500 430Semi-intensive 25 1 250 27 400 520Extensive 56 1 560 33 000 620
Tentative results: Water
ET: actual evapotranspiration (m3 per case study area per year)MAR: mean annual rainfall (m3 per case study area per year)
1. Absolute terms Impact low/none 2. Productivity gain across the board
Baseline
Fodder basket
ET/MAR
m3m-3, %
ET/feed
m3ton-1
ET/milk
m3ton-1
ET mm/year
/ per system
Intensive 31 960 44 300 490
Semi-intensive 28 1 180 102 500 580
Extensive 64 1 560 160 800 650
Scenario
Intensive 26 1 160 12 500 430Semi-intensive 25 1 250 27 400 520Extensive 56 1 560 33 000 620
Tentative results: Water
ET: actual evapotranspiration (m3 per case study area per year)MAR: mean annual rainfall (m3 per case study area per year)
1. Absolute terms Impact low/none 2. Productivity gain across the board
Tentative results: Green house gas emissions
• Total production: CO2 equivalents emission from baseline to improved fodder scenario for study area: circa +30%
• Efficiency gain from 1.25 to 0.7 kg CO2 equivalents per liter milk
Tentative results: Biodiversity
• 29 species threatened or endangered
• Parks are reported to be well protected
• Habitat encroachment from small holder farming a threat for these species
Ex-ante impact assessments
* VC step partly assessed
Water
Soil
GHGs
Biodiversity
Intensive
** VC step not yet assessed
District boundary Other town Important river Forest
Low impact risk Slight medium impact risk Medium impact risk
Fodder scarcity dry season
• Critical knowledge gaps and challenges• Secondary data• Participatory data• To capture - smallholder farming systems in patchy landscapes
undergoing rapid change• To do rapid assessment
• To make CLEANED more accessible for external use: • Make the framework open for various input data• Interface to enable participation
• Close link to CRP Livestock and Fish - directly respond to expressed demands and users; engage with key potential usesrs
CLEANED moving ahead
21