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

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

BACKGROUND STUDIES

2

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.

THE CLEANED FRAMEWORK

6

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

Example : Dairy development in Tanzania

More MILKIT / MAZIWA ZAIDI

Lushoto

Forest

Low and variable milk yield (400 – 1250 liter/year/LU)

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