applying sustainability assessment of food and agriculture ... · 1. to study and apply safa tool...

Applying Sustainability Assessment of Food and

Agriculture systems (SAFA) Tool to evaluate

Environmental and Social Sustainability:

Case Study of Maize Cultivation in Northern Thailand

Aekkarun Worradaluk1, Jitti Mungkalasiri3, Cheema Soralump2, and Prakaytham Suksatit3,*

1Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Advanced and Sustainable Environmental Engineering,

Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

2Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

3National Metal and Materials Technology Center, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Objectives

3. Scope of Work

4. Sustainability Definition and SAFA

5. Research Methodology

6. Result and Discussion

7. Conclusions

8. Acknowledgements

2/43

INTRODUCTION

3/43

Problem

• Thailand is the world's fourth-largest chicken

exporter (34% of total production).

• The demand of feed will increase in 2028-2032

around 22.87 million tons. (Thai Feed Mill Association,

2014)

From: Global Trade Atlas (2013)

2010

4/43

Problem (continued) • Maize yield was around 4 million tons/year, during

10 years ago,

• Almost 100% of maize yield send to Feed

Manufacturer.

• The benefit from maize seed has valued about

45,000 million baht/year (1,125 million Euros/year).

From: Office of Agricultural Economics (2015)

2007 2011

5/43

Problem (continued)

From: Sal Forest (2014)

From: Russell S. (2014)

6/43

From: Kaset Suk Sun (2015)

Results

Life Cycle Assessment

(ISO 14040, ISO 14044)

Response-Inducing

Sustainability Evaluation

(RISE, version 2.0)

Sustainability Monitoring

and Assessment RouTine

(SMART)

Social Life Cycle

Assessment (S-LCA)

Roundtable on

Sustainable Biofuels,

Impact assessment

Guidelines

7/43

From 20 Researches of all sustainability reports;

• Kanittha K. et al (2011) studied about the factor that increasing GHG emission

by collected samples of BC from field open burning of maize residues

(Pakchong, Nakhon Ratchasrima) by Micro Aethalometer.

• Vicent G. et al (2014) purposed to analyze and assess the effectiveness of

generic themes and sub-themes of sustainability frameworks in the case of

Danish maize, as followed;

1. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels Impact Assessment (RSB),

2. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA), and

3. Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA).

Literature Review

8/43

OBJECTIVES

9/43

Objectives

1. To study and apply SAFA tool for assessing environmental and

social sustainability of Maize cultivation area in Northern

Thailand.

2. To compare the environmental and social sustainability results of

cultivation technologies.

3. To suggest an applying of SAFA tool for maize cultivation.

10/43

SCOPE OF WORK

11/43

Scope and Boundary

1. SAFA tool is used for a guideline in this research.

2. Studied scope is Maize cultivation process in Northern area

of Thailand.

12/43

SUSTA INAB IL I TY

DEF IN I T ION

AND

SAFA

13/43

Sustainability Definition and SAFA What is the Sustainability?

What is the Sustainability?

The 2005 World Summit on Social Development identified 3

sustainable development goals;

From: Thwink.org (2014)

14/43

(1) Economic development,

(2) Social development, and

(3) Environmental protection.

What is the SAFA?

From: FAO (2015)

Sustainability Assessment of Food and

Agriculture systems (SAFA)

Sustainability Definition and SAFA What is the SAFA?

• Developed from FAO in October18, 2013.

• Used for assessing a sustainability along

agriculture, forestry and fisheries value

chains.

• SAFA was developed as

- an international reference document,

- a benchmark that defines the elements

of sustainability, and

- a framework for assessing trade-offs and

synergies between all dimensions of

sustainability.

15/43

Sustainability Definition and SAFA

16

Why we use SAFA ?

Tool Type/Name

Steps of the value chain impacts covered Sustainability Dimensions Covered

Production Processing Retail Environment Economy Governance Social

Cool Farm Tool

Water/Carbon/Biodiversity

FootPrint tools (e.g.

WRI/WBCSD, TEEB/WWF)

Ecolabel Index

OECD Environmental

Indicators

International Labour

Organization, Core

Conventions

Global Social Compliance

Programme (GSCP)

Reference Tools (2011

versions)

Sustainability Assessment

of Food and Agriculture

systems (SAFA)

From: FAO (2015)

16/43

Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Framework

SAFA Framework

17/43

RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

18/43

Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Methodology

SAFA Methodology

STEP 1: Mapping

STEP 2: Contextualization

STEP 3: Selecting tools and Indicators

STEP 4: Reporting

19/43


SAFA Methodology

STEP 1: Mapping



STEP 4: Reporting

20/43

From: FAO (2015)

Research Methodology Assessed Dimensions

Assessed Dimensions of this study

This study focused on

“Environmental Integrity” and

“Social Well-Being”.

21/43

Research Methodology System boundary

System Boundary Details of Data

Studied area: Tambon Na Phun, Amphoe Wang Chin,

Phrae province

Duration: 1 year (2015)

Data Collection Method:

Primary Data: Questionnaire (on-site interview)

Secondary data: Government and Private sectors

Sample size: 40 farmers

22/43

This assessment studied from 6 technologies, as followed;

Maize Cultivation Technologies

Maize Cultivation

Technologies

Good Agricultural

Practices (GAP)

non-Good

Agricultural

Practices (non-GAP)

Flat Area

Flat Area

Slope Area

Irrigation Area

non-Irrigation Area

non-Irrigation Area

non-Irrigation Area

Irrigation Area

Irrigation Area

Research Methodology Maize cultivation technologies

23/43


SAFA Methodology

STEP 1: Mapping



STEP 4: Reporting

24/43

Research Methodology Assessed Indicators

25

Assessed Indicators

From 6 Themes/ 14 Sub-Themes/ 52 Indicators 4 Themes/ 9 Sub-Themes/ 33 Indicators

Exclude “Biodiversity” due to Studied areas are

Small-Scale Enterprise.

Exclude “Biodiversity” due to Studied areas are

Small-Scale Enterprise.

Exclude “Animal Welfare” due to Studied areas are

not related to Livestock.

25/43

Research Methodology Assessed Indicators

26

Assessed Indicators

From 6 Themes/ 16 Sub-Themes/ 19 Indicators 2 Themes/ 3 Sub-Themes/ 3 Indicators

• The problem of foreign labour,

• The threaten of labour wage from

employers, etc.

Thai children must help their parents

for their works.

Burning maize field in Northern

Thailand which generated an intense

smog and effect to vicinal areas.

26/43


SAFA Methodology

STEP 1: Mapping



STEP 4: Reporting

27/43


28

Rating of Accuracy Score

Criteria Accuracy

Score

Secondary Data

NO2 O3 Kc ET0 WRFL Soil structure

Is data current? Maximum 1-2 years old. 3

Is it primary data collected directly for SAFA? 3

Is it primary data from previous 3rd party audit

or sustainability tool? 3

Is it primary data older than 2 years, but

considered still reliable? 2

Is it secondary data? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Is it primary data older than 5 years? 1

Are they estimations or proxies? 1

Actual Score 2 2 2 2 2 2

The total number of indicators 1 1 1 1 1 1

Average Score 2 2 2 2 2 2

28/43

Research Methodology Assessing Methods

(Environmental Integrity) Type of Indicators

1. Target Indicators

Separated in 3 colours; Dark Green, Yellow, Red

Dark Green: They set a plan and their plan ready to use in all stakeholders.

Yellow: They set a plan but it cannot use in all stakeholder.

Red: They did not do anything.

2. Practice Indicators

Separated in 2 colours; Dark Green and Red

Dark Green: They developed their process followed to their plans.

Red: They did not do anything.

3. Performance Indicators

The assessment followed to many standards such as IPCC (2006), EEA (2009), FAO

(2013), etc.

29/43


SAFA Methodology

STEP 1: Mapping



STEP 4: Reporting

30/43


31/43

80-100% Best

60-80% Good

40-60% Moderate

20-40% Limited

0-20% Unacceptable

Research Methodology On-site Interviews.

On-site Interviews

32

32/43

RESUL T AND D I S CUSS I ON

33/43

Result and Discussion Data Quality

Accuracy Score

Sub-Theme Data Quality Score

E 1.1 GHG Moderate 2

E 1.2 Air Quality High 3

E 2.1 Water Withdrawal High 3

E 2.2 Water Quality High 3

E 3.1 Soil Quality Moderate 2

E 3.2 Land Degradation Low 1

E 5.1 Material Use High 3

E 5.2 Energy Use Moderate 2

E 5.3 Waste Reduction and Disposal High 3

S 3.2 Forced Labour High 3

S 3.3 Child Labour High 3

S 5.2 Public Health High 3

75 percent of all input (84 inputs) was ranked in “High quality”

34/43

Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result

[GAP] [non-GAP]

SUSTAINABILITY OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL SUB-THEME

100

80

60

40

20

GHG Air Quality Water

Withdrawal

Water Quality Soil Quality Land Degradation Material Use Energy

Use

Waste Reduction

and Disposal

%

35/43

Hotspots Sub-Theme

from all technologies, Example: (GAP & non-GAP)

(1) Greenhouse Gas,

(2) Water Withdrawal, and

(3) Energy Use.

1 st Priority to Improve


Environmental Integrity

{GAP} [non-GAP]

SUSTAINABILITY OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR

100

80

60

40

20

%

36/43


ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY

GHG Reduction

Target GHG Mitigation

Practice

GHG Balance

Air Pollution Reduction

Target

Air Pollution Reduction

Practice

Ambient

concentration of

air pollutant

Water

Conservation

Target

Water

Conservation

Practices

Ground and

Surface Water

Withdrawal

Clean Water

Target

Water Pollutant

Prevention

Practices

Concentration of

water pollutant

Soil Improvement

Practices Soil physical

structure Soil Chemical

quality

Soil Biological

quality

Soil Organic Matter

Land Conservation

and Rehabitation Plan

Land Conservation and

Rehabitation Practices

Net loss/Gain

of Practice land

Material

Consumption

Practice

Nutrient

Balance

Renewable

and Recycle

Materials

Renewable Energy

Use Target

Energy Saving

Practice

Renewable Energy

Waste Reduction Practice

Waste Disposal

GHG Reduction

Target GHG Mitigation

Practice

GHG Balance

Air Pollution

Reduction Target

Air Pollution

Reduction Practice

Ambient

concentration of

air pollutant

Water

Conservation

Target

Water

Conservation

Practices

Ground and

Surface Water

Withdrawal

Clean Water

Target

Water Pollutant

Prevention Practices

Concentration of

water pollutant

Soil Improvement

Practices Soil physical

structure Soil Chemical

quality

Soil Biological quality

Soil Organic Matter

Land Conservation

and Rehabitation Plan

Land Conservation and

Rehabitation Practices

Net loss/Gain

of Practice land

Material

Consumption

Practice

Nutrient

Balance

Renewable

and Recycle

Materials

Renewable

Energy Use

Target

Energy Saving

Practice

Renewable

Energy

Waste Reduction

Practice

Waste Disposal

Environmental Sustainability of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)

Cultivation Technologies (Indicators)

Environmental Sustainability of non-Good Agricultural

Practices (non-GAP) Cultivation Technologies (Indicators)

[GAP]-[Flat area]-[Irrigation area]

[GAP]-[Flat area]-[non-Irrigation area]

[non-GAP]-[Flat area]-[Irrigation area]

[non-GAP]-[Flat area]-[non-Irrigation area]

[non-GAP]-[Slope area]-[non-Irrigation area]

37/43

GAP non-GAP


[GAP] [non-GAP]

100

80

60

40

20

Forced Labour Child Labour Public Health

38/43

Hired labour did not have

(farmers use only family

labour)

Thai children (below 16 year-old) should

help their parents for appropriate work

without an employment,

Farmers are trained about Health

protection and they followed to

that technique.

SOCIAL WELL-BEING

39


SUSTAINABILITY OF BOTH DIMENSIONS

GHG

Air Quality

Water Withdrawal

Water Quality

Soil Quality

Land Degradation

Material Use

Energy Use

Waste Reduction and

Disposal

Child Labour

Public Health

Forced Labour

39/43

CONCLUSIONS

40/43

Conclusions

• ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY

1. GAP is better than non-GAP.

2. Hotspot indicators are GreenHouse Gas, Water Withdrawal, and Energy use.

3. GAP technology used organic fertilizer that be an advantage in long term.

4. GAP technologies avoid burning farm in soil preparation step,

5. Irrigation and non-Irrigation technology does not different.

6. For improving their hotspot, government sectors should promote a campaign

for “reforestration”.

7. Non-GAP technology still have wrong disposal, disposal policy is should be

distributed, promoted, and applied .

41/43

• SOCIAL WELL-BEING

Overall of Social dimensions in this study was ranked in BEST.

• SUITABILITY OF SAFA ASSESSMENT IN THAILAND

1. show the result in all of dimensions

2. quantitative results.

• Thailand Advanced Institute of Science and Technology and

Tokyo Institute of Technology (TAIST-Tokyo Tech)

• National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC)

Acknowledgements

42/43

Mr. Aekkarun WORRADALUK Tel: 06 95 92 79 48, (+66)90-1412645

Email: [email protected]

applying sustainability assessment of food and agriculture ... · 1. to study and apply safa tool...

Documents