Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Introducing the CLEANED framework for environmental ex-ante impact assessment of livestock value chains

1,454 views

Published on

Presented by 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) and Mario Herrero (CSIRO) at CLEANED Validation, Synthesis and Planning Workshop, Machakos, Kenya, 30-31 October 2014

Published in: Science
  • How long does it take for VigRX Plus to start working? ◆◆◆ https://tinyurl.com/yy3nfggr
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Introducing the CLEANED framework for environmental ex-ante impact assessment of livestock value chains

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. BACKGROUND STUDIES 2
  3. 3. Review other environmental frameworks: 1. Environmental assessment too complex, or too simple 2. Landscape-medium term missing Ran et al 2014 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Expert knowledge Field Farm Landscape Regional Global Short <1 yr Medium 1-10 yr Long >10 yr Total Number of frameworks General Modelling Indicator specific
  4. 4. Fraval et al, 2014 Review livestock value chain -LCA studies: 1. Rapid increase in livestock studies of last few years 2. Few studies along entire livestock value chain 3. Single impact approach (eg only greenhouse gas) 2000 2005 2010 2013 Number of studies for lifecycle analysis approach
  5. 5. Environmental impacts along value chains Greatest environmental impacts = 1 + 2 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.
  6. 6. THE CLEANED FRAMEWORK 6
  7. 7. The CLEANED framework Building blocks 1. Value chain concept in local context 2. Stocks and flows across scales 3. Environmental impact and pathways 4. Key indicators Step-wise procedure A. Setting the baseline B. Ex-ante assessment
  8. 8. Value Chain Concept • 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 8
  9. 9. Four environmental dimensions and key indicators for each 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
  10. 10. Process flow of CLEANED
  11. 11. Example : Dairy development in Tanzania More MILKIT / MAZIWA ZAIDI
  12. 12. Lushoto Forest Low and variable milk yield (400 – 1250 liter/year/LU)
  13. 13. Scenario of change: intensification – no land use change Scenario1 Fodder % grass/residues/other Livestock population LU Milk yield l/yr /livestock unit • 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
  14. 14. Tentative results: Land-soil 1. Absolute: Increase in nutrient mining and soil loss 2. Productivity: efficiency compared to milk gain: Gains across the board Kg N/1000l/yr 0.00 -1.00 -2.00 -3.00 -4.00 -5.00 Kg /ha/yr 0.00 -10.00 -20.00 -30.00 -40.00 -50.00 -60.00 -70.00 -80.00 Intensive Semi-intensive Extensive Baseline Scenario 1 -6.00 Intensive Semi-intensive Extensive 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Intensive Semi-intensive Extensive 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Intensive Semi-intensive Extensive Series1 Scenario 1 N balance soil loss N loss / quantity milk soil loss / quantity milk
  15. 15. 1. Absolute terms Impact low/none 2. Productivity gain across the board Baseline Fodder basket Tentative results: Water 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 12 500 430 Semi-intensive 25 1 250 27 400 520 Extensive 56 1 560 33 000 620 ET: actual evapotranspiration (m3 per case study area per year) MAR: mean annual rainfall (m3 per case study area per year)
  16. 16. 1. Absolute terms Impact low/none 2. Productivity gain across the board Baseline Fodder basket Tentative results: Water 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 12 500 430 Semi-intensive 25 1 250 27 400 520 Extensive 56 1 560 33 000 620 ET: actual evapotranspiration (m3 per case study area per year) MAR: mean annual rainfall (m3 per case study area per year)
  17. 17. 1. Absolute terms Impact low/none 2. Productivity gain across the board Baseline Fodder basket Tentative results: Water 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 12 500 430 Semi-intensive 25 1 250 27 400 520 Extensive 56 1 560 33 000 620 ET: actual evapotranspiration (m3 per case study area per year) MAR: mean annual rainfall (m3 per case study area per year)
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. CLEANED moving ahead • 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 21

×