Applying Sustainability Assessment of Food and - PDF document

Applying Sustainability Assessment of Fo
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
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. Objecti

ves 3. Scope of Work 4. Sustainabili
ves 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 mil

lion tons. (Thai Feed Mill Associatio
lion 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 Agricultu
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 Monitorin

g and Assessment RouTine (SMART) Soc
g 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 R
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 Sys
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 sustainabi

lity results of cultivation technologie
lity 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 SUSTAINABILITY DEFINITION AND SAFA

13/43 Sustainability Definition and
13/43 Sustainability Definition and SAFAWhat 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 th

e SAFA? From: FAO (2015) Sustain
e SAFA? From: FAO (2015) Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) Sustainability Definition and SAFAWhat 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 internatio

nal reference document, - a benchm
nal 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 SAFA16 Why we use SAFA ? Tool Type/Name Steps of the value chain impacts covered Sustainability Dimensions Covere

d Production Processing Retail E
d 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 Indicato

rs    ï
rs     International Labour Organization, Core Conventions     Global Social Compliance Programme (GSCP) Reference Tools (2011 versions)       Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture

systems (SAFA)  
systems (SAFA)        From: FAO (2015) 16/43 Sustainability Definition and SAFASAFA Framework SAFA Framework 17/43 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 18/43 Sustainability Definition and SAFASAFA Methodology SAFA Methodology STEP 1: Mapping STEP 2: Contextualization STEP 3: Selec

ting tools and Indicators STEP 4: Repo
ting tools and Indicators STEP 4: Reporting 19/43 Sustainability Definition and SAFASAFA Methodology SAFA Methodology STEP 1: Mapping STEP 2: Contextualization STEP 3: Selecting tools and Indicators STEP 4: Reporting 20/43 From: FAO (2015) Research MethodologyAssessed Dimensions Assessed Dimensions of this study This study f

ocused on “Environmental Integrityâ
ocused on “Environmental Integrity” and “Social Well-Being”. 21/43 Research MethodologySystem 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
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-
Slope Area Irrigation Area non-Irrigation Area non-Irrigation Area non-Irrigation Area Irrigation Area Irrigation Area Research MethodologyMaize cultivation technologies 23/43 Sustainability Definition and SAFASAFA Methodology SAFA Methodology STEP 1: Mapping STEP 2: Contextualization STEP 3: Selecting tools and Indic

ators STEP 4: Reporting 24/43 Rese
ators STEP 4: Reporting 24/43 Research MethodologyAssessed 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 Enter

prise. Exclude “Animal Welfare” du
prise. Exclude “Animal Welfare” due to Studied areas are not related to Livestock. 25/43 Research MethodologyAssessed 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, et

c. Thai children must help their par
c. 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 Sustainability Definition and SAFASAFA Methodology SAFA Methodology STEP 1: Mapping STEP 2: Contextualization STEP 3: Selecting tools and Indicators STEP 4: Reporting

27/43 Sustainability Definition and
27/43 Sustainability Definition and SAFASAFA Methodology 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 s
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
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 MethodologyAssessing 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 p

lan ready to use in all stakeholders.
lan 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 follo

wed to many standards such as IPCC (2006
wed to many standards such as IPCC (2006), EEA (2009), FAO (2013), etc. 29/43 Sustainability Definition and SAFASAFA Methodology SAFA Methodology STEP 1: Mapping STEP 2: Contextualization STEP 3: Selecting tools and Indicators STEP 4: Reporting 30/43 Sustainability Definition and SAFASAFA Methodology 31/43 80-100% Best 60-8

0% Good 40-60% Moderate 20-4
0% Good 40-60% Moderate 20-40% Limited 0-20% Unacceptable Research MethodologyOn-site Interviews. On-site Interviews 32 32/43 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 33/43 Result and DiscussionData QualityAccuracy Score Sub-Theme Data Quality Score E 1.1 GHG Moderate 2 E 1.2 Air Quality High 3 E 2.1 Water Withdr

awal High 3 E 2.2 Water Quality
awal 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 qualit
84 inputs) was ranked in “High quality” 34/43 Result and DiscussionSustainability 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
% 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 Result and DiscussionSustainability Assessment ResultEnvironmental Integrity {GAP} [non-GAP] SUSTAINABILIT

Y OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR 100
Y OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR 100 80 60 40 20 % 36/43 Result and DiscussionSustainability Assessment ResultENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GHG Reduction Target GHG Mitigation Practice GHG Balance Air Pollution Reduction Target Air Pollution Reduction Practice Ambient concentration of air pollutant Water Conservation Tar

get Water Conservation Practices
get 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 Pla

n Land Conservation and Rehabitatio
n 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 Bala

nce Air Pollution Reduction Target
nce 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 Soi

l physical structure Soil Chemical q
l 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 Ene

rgy Saving Practice Renewable Energy
rgy 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-Irrigat
] [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 Result and DiscussionSustainability Assessment Result [GAP] [non-GAP] 100 80 60 40 20 Forced Labo

ur Child Labour Public Health 38/4
ur 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 Result and DiscussionSusta

inability Assessment ResultSUSTAINABILI
inability Assessment ResultSUSTAINABILITY 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 no

n-GAP. 2.Hotspot indicators are Gr
n-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 shou

ld promote a campaign for “reforestra
ld 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.quant
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: Ukrit_bill@out