Ms. Fawn Jackson - Canada - Beef Sustainability
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•95 views
Canada - Beef Sustainability - Ms. Fawn Jackson, Manager, Environment and Sustainability, Canadian Cattlemen's Association, from the 2016 Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), October 5 - 6, 2016, Banff, Alberta, Canada. More presentations at http://trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2016-global-roundtable-sustainable-beef
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (14)
Similar to Ms. Fawn Jackson - Canada - Beef Sustainability
Similar to Ms. Fawn Jackson - Canada - Beef Sustainability (20)
More from John Blue
More from John Blue (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Ms. Fawn Jackson - Canada - Beef Sustainability
- 1. 1 Fawn Jackson, M.Ag Executive Director Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef Regional Demonstration of Continued Progress
- 2. 2 Sustainability Assessment Farm to fork analysis, key performance indicators and strategy to advance continuous improvement in the Canadian beef sector THREE Core Pillars of work Verification Framework Verification framework to assess the sustainability of individual operations along the beef value chain Projects Projects guided by the Sustainability Strategy to strategically advance sustainability within the Canadian beef sector
- 4. 4 A comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental and economic impacts of the beef industry Assessment Identifies focus areas and strategies for the CRSB and our membership to continually advance the sustainability of the Canadian beef industry Strategy Benchmarking and setting a path for the future
- 5. 5 Environmental Assessment Assessed climate change, fossil fuel use, water use and air and land pollution potentials through the E-LCA and biodiversity, carbon soil sequestration, land use, water use and water risk through the land use assessment Sustainability Assessment There were three main sections to the National Beef Sustainability Assessment Social Assessment Assessed the practices and processes that promote the well being of stakeholders including, workers, local communities as well as animals Economic Assessment Assessed; long-term profitability, long term cost of production, domestic consumer demand international consumer demand
- 6. 6 KPI: Number of CRSB members and Observers Diversity of CRSB membership Baseline: As of June 30, 2016 CRSB had 53 members and 40 observers Action Items: 1. Build a trusted go-to forum on sustainable beef in Canada through diversity in membership, leading scientific information and robust frameworks to measure and advance sustainability 2. Enable the further engagement of the scientific community in the CRSBs work and membership 3. Through communications activities, engage, inform and enable information sharing that assists the Canadian beef industry in advancing sustainable practices Sustainability Strategy Overarching Goal #1: Build a stronger and more united Canadian beef sustainability community 93Members & Observers
- 8. 8 E-LCA Climate change Fossil fuel use Water use Air pollution Water pollution Followed ISO and LEAP guidelines Land-Use Assessment Biodiversity Soil carbon sequestration Water use and risk Environmental Assessment
- 10. 10 Environment Summary Results Water 631 L (BB) or 235 L (LW) GHG Footprint 30.8 (BB) or 11.4 (LW) C02 eg./kg Soil Carbon Stock 1.5 billion tonnes Land Use Total 21 Mha Meat Waste 19%
- 11. 11 Sustainability Strategy Goals Environment Climate Change Goal #2. Reduce the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Canadian Beef per unit of product produced (CO2 eq./kg) Land Use & Biodiversity Goal #3: Enhance ecosystem services and biodiversity on lands managed by beef producers Meat Waste Goal #5: Reduce post-harvest meat waste Water Goal #4: Enhance riparian health and reduce the blue water footprint of beef production
- 13. 13 Social Assessment Methods The S-LCA utilized the surveys to identify hotspots Survey Survey results were further analyzed with a desk top assessment and regulatory review Desk Top Assessment
- 15. 15 Results Social Assessment Areas where industry is performing well Training and policies in place to ensure health and safety within the workforce Health & Safety Scope of benefits, overtime, unionization, work load Working Conditions Sickness and disease prevention, health assessment, handling practices, housing and feeding, transport Animal Care Commitment to sustainability issues (water, biodiversity), local community support, odor reduction, responsible procurement Socio-Economic Commitment
- 16. 16 Four higher risks were identified across the value chain Results Social Assessment National Rights of foreign workers Distribution Median income Suppliers Rate of fatal and non-fatal injuries Cattle operations Work load 16
- 17. 17 Sustainability Strategy Social Goals Farm Safety & Working Conditions Goal #6: Promote farm safety and responsible working conditions Animal Care Goal #7. Promote excellence in animal care Antimicrobials Goal #8: Support the further development, monitoring and dissemination of best practices regarding antimicrobial use
- 19. 19 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY Defn: Is the ability of a system to maintain productivity in the face of a major disturbance, as well as slow shifts in consumer preferences
- 20. 20 Domestic Consumer Demand Long Term Cost of Production Economic Assessment Framework Four indicators were chosen to benchmark the economic sustainability of the Cdn. Beef industry Long Term Profitability Producer Viability International Consumer Demand Consumer Resilience
- 21. 21 Results Producer Viability Long term cost of production, 2013 baseline (deflated) • Cow/calf $1.20/one hundred pounds (cwt), or $0.03/kg • Feedlot $106.67/cwt, or $2.35/kg Long Term profitability, 2013 baseline (deflated) • Cow/calf $93.03/cow, $93.03/cow • Feedlot -$0.09/cwt (cash), or -$0.20/ckg
- 22. 22 Consumer Resilience Results Domestic Demand International Demand 104Domestic Index 2000=100 82International Index 2000=100
- 23. 23 Increase financial viability of beef production in Canada Goal #9 Increase demand for Canadian beef through consumer awareness of sustainable beef production Goal #10 Sustainability Strategy Economic Goals
- 24. 24 Thank-You! A sincere thank-you to everyone who contributed to the success of this project. The steering committee consisted of CRSB members and observers, industry experts and scientific advisors. Steering Committee 12 Canfax and Deloitte researchers with expertise spanning across social, environmental and economic sustainability topics. Research Teams 18 8 external reviewers and 8 industry experts contributed their expertise. External Experts 16 Surveys were filled out by producers and packers. We estimate this involved the contribution of well over 120 individuals. Producers & Processors 120 CRSB membership and observers contributed to the development of strategy through priority setting and identification of KPIs CRSB Stakeholders 75
- 26. 26 www.crsb.ca
- 27. 27 Sustainability Assessment Farm to fork analysis, key performance indicators and strategy to advance continuous improvement in the Canadian beef sector THREE Core Pillars of work Verification Framework Verification framework to assess the sustainability of individual operations along the beef value chain Projects Projects guided by the Sustainability Strategy to strategically advance sustainability within the Canadian beef sector
- 28. 28 Thank youFind us on twitter @CRSB_beef Or sign up for our newsletter www.crsb.ca
Editor's Notes
- Social sustainability aims to assess the processes and practices that promote the well-being of stakeholders, including workers and local communities, as well as animals. The social assessment adopted a social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) approach and provides a baseline of industry hotspots pertaining to: • working conditions, including temporary foreign workers and regulations; • animal welfare; • and antimicrobials , lo
- The Environmental Assessment of the study included two main segments: an Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (E-LCA) and a Land Use Assessment (LUA). The E-LCA examined the beef industry’s impact on climate change, fossil fuel use, water use and air and land pollution potentials. The E-LCA followed the principles and framework for life cycle assessment of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) guidelines were also applied. The life cycle inventory was made using SimaPro, an LCA software program. The 77 surveys as well as expert consultations were used to help derive the modelling assumptions. Canadian specific data were used to assess most environmental topics, however, data availability and quality were limited for some topics and, in these cases, the most appropriate international sources were used as proxies. Figure 1 shows the stages included in the E-LCA (see Appendix A for further details). It is important to note that the results from the E-LCA are presented in two different functional units, which cannot be directly compared. The LUA portion added to the comprehensiveness of the study, as it assessed topics not well addressed in standard life cycle assessments such as biodiversity, carbon soil sequestration, water use and water risk. The LUA developed innovative science-based approaches designed specifically for this study. It should be noted that these preliminary assessments are a meaningful first step, however further research on these topics is recommended, as global methodologies develop and more site-specific data become available. More in-depth assessments will increase understanding of the topic in relation to the beef industry as well as enhance the usability of the results to drive continuous improvement. The water risk component focused on the relationship between cattle density and areas of higher potential water risk. To assess biodiversity, a modified wildlife habitat indicator was developed, building on the work of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), to determine the habitat capacity of land used for beef production. Finally, land use and land management changes were modelled to estimate total land use as well as carbon sequestration. The environmental assessment (both the E-LCA and the LUA) was conducted by Deloitte.
- Along with the economic and environmental aspects, social parameters are a key component of a product’s sustainability. Social sustainability aims to assess the processes and practices that promote the well-being of stakeholders, including workers and local communities, as well as animals. The social assessment adopted a social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) approach and provides a baseline of industry hotspots pertaining to: • working conditions, including temporary foreign workers and regulations; • animal welfare; • and antimicrobials
- Social Assessment The social component of the study adopted a Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) approach. The S-LCA complied with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) guidelines. The data collected via 76 of the surveys were complemented with a review of suppliers, distributors, industry associations and national laws and regulations, and other existing data sources. The life cycle stages and main stakeholders assessed in each stage of the S-LCA are found in Table 1 (see Appendix B for more details). The results are categorized according to a risk scale; see Table 2 for a description of the risk scale. For this study, the term 'risk' reflects the potential for negative impact. The S-LCA was conducted by Deloitte. Table 1 Stages and stakeholders assessed in each stage of the S-LCA LIFE CYCLE STAGES FARMING TRANSPORTATION PACKING SECONDARY RETAIL CONSUMPTION between farms and packers PROCESSING
- Social Assessment The social component of the study adopted a Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) approach. The S-LCA complied with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) guidelines. The data collected via 76 of the surveys were complemented with a review of suppliers, distributors, industry associations and national laws and regulations, and other existing data sources. The life cycle stages and main stakeholders assessed in each stage of the S-LCA are found in Table 1 (see Appendix B for more details). The results are categorized according to a risk scale; see Table 2 for a description of the risk scale. For this study, the term 'risk' reflects the potential for negative impact. The S-LCA was conducted by Deloitte. Table 1 Stages and stakeholders assessed in each stage of the S-LCA LIFE CYCLE STAGES FARMING TRANSPORTATION PACKING SECONDARY RETAIL CONSUMPTION between farms and packers PROCESSING
- Good practices witnessed across all value chain and in different social areas: Health and safety Working conditions Animal welfare Socio-economic repercussions Some examples : Health and safety Beef producers: prevention (i.e. training and awareness building), training for seasonal workers Processors: All indicators for both workers and local communities show very low risks (local communities safety prevention, prevention and training of employees, including Temporary Foreign Workers). Working conditions’ indicators were also assessed specifically for the Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW). They show low and very low risks in terms of health and safety training, unionization, scope of benefits and average hourly wage. Working conditions Scope of benefits (at least 5 of 9 of the ILO social minimum standards offered to workers on average) at both cattle operations and processors Processors: overtime pay, unionization, work load, workweek length all show good practices and very low risks At the national level, Canada is showing low risks in terms of employment insecurity, labour-employer relations, as well as very low risks related to discrimination. Animal welfare Cattle operations: health prevention and assessment, handling practices, housing and feeding, transport all show good practices and very low risks Handling and transport practices, installations for animal welfare, audit, internal communication of regulations at processors Associations: animal welfare promotion Socio Economic repercussions Cattle operations: commitment to sustainable issues (water, biodiversity, grazing), local community support, cohabitation practices (collaboration and nuisance management) Processors: odor reduction, local community support, promotion of responsible procurement Distributors: responsible procurement practices
- Rights of foreign workers: national regulatory and legal environment level Rights of migrant workers show a high risk in Canada, partly based on the fact that Canada is neither a signatory nor a State Party of the United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families Note: not ratified either by Australia or New Zealand, or by other major western countries – they consider their national laws and regulations are sufficient and would give migrant workers too much leverage. However, it is the only international regulatory tool that exists that covers migrant workers rights in receiving countries. This reflects the federal government’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations that restricts TFW to change employer That restriction, as well as the employers’ ability to sponsor TFW for permanent residency, can put migrant workers in a vulnerable position. TFWs represented on average 14% of the meatpacking plant workforce in 2013. Median income at the distribution level The sector median wages and salaries are < 50% of the national median wages and salaries Assessment made at the sectoral level, as individual companies’ information not available Sectors used as proxy included: food and beverage stores, food services and drinking places (Stat Can) National median income considered for assessment (full time only): ~$49,000 Note: Not based on Full Time Equivalent as data not available Rate of fatal and non-fatal injuries at the suppliers’ level Indicator: rate of fatal injuries above country average Fatal injury rate in Canada : 2.7 Sectors assessed: A) Suppliers of seed, grain, fertilizers, feed ; B) salt and minerals ; C) veterinary products Sector data used as proxy: A) Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry (9.1), B) Mining and quarrying (14.1), C) Manufacturing (2.4) Work load at the cattle operations level Indicator: More than 48 hours per week during more than 13 weeks per year Should be considered in the context of seasonality of the industry and business models of cattle operations Expected area of potential risk common to the agricultural sector. Aligned with the agriculture sector statistics showing that an average work week ranges between 38.9 hours in January and 50.4 in May. Figures vary for employees (between 34.9 and 40 hours) and self-employed (between 40.7 and 57.3 hours). (Statistics Canada, 2015) Note by Steering Committee: long hours also present benefit in terms of animal care as farmers dedicate time to ensure cattle well being FROM REPORT Working Conditions Most indicators related to working conditions showed very low to low risks. Farmers and packers scored well on hourly wages, and health and safety training and prevention. The S-LCA identified four social hotspots along the Canadian beef value chain that were directly linked to working conditions: the rights of temporary foreign workers at the national level; the fatality rate at the supplier level; the wage of workers at the distribution level; and the work load at the beef producer level. Social impacts for temporary foreign workers were found to be a low risk in terms of social benefits, average hourly wage, and unionization rate. However, the legal rights of migrant workers show a high risk because Canada is neither a signatory nor a State Party of the United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families—the indicator used to evaluate legal rights in this study. The wage of workers at the distribution level showed that fast-food chains have a low score, as median wages and salaries are less than 50% of the national median wages and salaries7. The beef industry’s upstream suppliers of seeds, grains, fertilizers, feed, salt and mineral all have a fatal injury rate above the country average of 2.7 per 100,000 employees —a high risk category; however their non-fatal injury rate is below the country average of 1,522 per 100,000 employees8. At the downstream level, the fast-food chain sector has both fatal and non-fatal injury rates below the country average9. Sectors of veterinary products and retailers both have a fatal injury rate below the country average, but a non-fatal injury rate above the country average10. Workload for beef producers was also identified as a high risk category, with 54% of respondents exceeding a 48 hour work week for more than 13 weeks of the year.
- The objectives of this economic assessment are to: Develop a framework to evaluate economic sustainability in Canada; and Establish a baseline to measure progress. The framework to evaluate economic performance of the Canadian Beef Industry utilizes both Producer Viability and Consumer Resilience. Four indicators are used as benchmarks: (1) long-term profitability; (2) long-term per unit cost of production; (3) domestic consumer demand; and (4) international consumer demand. Indicators provide flexibility in the sense that they can be used for entire industries at different geographic levels including global, regional, national and local levels. Spangenberg et al. (1998) noted that the non-linear relationship and unpredictable time-lag between a policy and its environmental impact makes it difficult to assess sustainable improvement using cost-benefit analyses. Compared to other approaches (such as Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis), a group of properly constructed indicators can measure or monitor the status of sustainable development not only in quantitative terms, but also in qualitative and descriptive terms. The simplicity and robustness of the performance indicator approach will provide a firm foundation for the inaugural sustainability assessment of the Canadian beef industry which aims to provide information on a suite of key issues rather than focusing on only one specific topic.
- Economic sustainability is defined as the ability of a system to maintain productivity in the face of a major disturbance, as well as slow shifts in consumer preferences. This definition focuses on the resilience of the industry as a whole and its ability to adapt to changing market conditions. Defining Economic Sustainability Economic sustainability is the ability of a system to maintain productivity in spite of a major disturbance, as well as slow shifts in consumer preferences (adapted from Conway 1985). Such a definition focuses on the resilience of the industry as a whole and the ability to adapt to changing market conditions. In terms of the probability of persistence into some future moment in time - the best proxy is the past, and as such we will be relying primarily on historical evidence in this analysis as a basis for how the beef industry might respond to major disturbances (e.g., disease outbreak, market shocks, weather impacts, changing consumer preferences) in the future.
- The framework to evaluate economic performance of the Canadian Beef Industry utilizes both Producer Viability and Consumer Resilience. Four indicators are used as benchmarks: (1) long-term profitability; (2) long-term per unit cost of production; (3) domestic consumer demand; and (4) international consumer demand. It is important to note that the indicators being assessed in this study are intended not to be a complete list of economic conditions evaluated by an operation or even industry, but rather the key data points that drive the industry. The Baseline The 2013 Baseline assessment for each indicator is shown in Table 1. The beef industry is characterized by small margins at every production stage. In 2013, cow-calf enterprises covered short-term (i.e., cash costs) and medium-term (i.e., including depreciation) costs. Three of the four typical farms also covered long-term costs (i.e., including opportunity costs). In this case, opportunity costs largely represent unpaid labour. Cow-calf per unit cost of production (COP) declined 12% between 1990 and 2014, in deflated dollars. Feedlot COP declined 33.5% between 2001 and 2010 before higher input prices reversed this trend. In 2013, COP was still 9% below the peak in 2001. Domestic retail beef demand was 104 (2000=100) in 2013, as it increased from the low of 96.5 in 2010. International demand was 82 in 2013 and has been increasing since the low of 63.6 in 2009 following the global financial crisis. Three categories of indicators were chosen to create an economic benchmark for the Canadian cattle industry and are summarized in Table 2. There are a number of contributing factors for each indicator. For example, risk management, price transmission, debt to asset ratios and off-farm income all must be taken into account when evaluating profitability. But the goal is not to improve risk management programs but to improve profitability. Moving forward, the CRSB may want to add leading indicators that contribute to continual improvement of economic sustainability. Three or two?
- Long term average margins from a 200 head cow herd of $9,650 with paid labour of $7,909 provides a total annual income of $17,559 (nominal, excludes government program payments). This is below Statistics Canada’s low income cut-off for rural areas in 2013 of $24,456 after taxes (family of four, Table 206-0092). Therefore, long-term margins on the typical cow-calf operation (i.e., those with less than 200 beef cows) cannot support a family. However, most of these operations are mixed with income from other commodities and therefore do not expect the beef enterprise to provide their entire income. Using the most recent 10-year average (2005-2014, see Table 5), which includes record large profits, results in a total annual income of $27,468 (including paid labour). 48% of cows are in herds with less than 122 head (Statistics Canada, 2011, Census of Agriculture) This assumes all profits go to the family and are not re-invested in the operation. Reliance on equity, cash reserves or alternative incomes sources for extended periods would indicate an unsustainable system Off-Farm Income The grains and oilseed sector has reduced its off-farm income from a high of 65% in 2005 to 42% in 2013 (Statistics Canada, Table 002-0035). In contrast, the beef sector (including feedlots) continues to have a high reliance on off-farm income with a high of 84% occurring in 2003 and while it has fluctuated over time it has not been below 75% over the last decade it was 82% in 2013.
- The Canadian Retail Demand Index and International Demand Index are the two key indicators for consumer demand. The Canadian Retail Demand Index measures domestic demand for beef at the retail level. The domestic market is the largest market for Canadian beef. The International Demand Index measures demand for Canadian beef in the global market. About 46% of Canada’s beef production, including live slaughter cattle exports, is exported, making the international consumer as important as the domestic consumer for the sustainable development of the Canadian cattle industry.