Aekkarun Worradaluk 1, Jitti Mungkalasiri 3, Cheema Soralump 2, and Prakaytham Suksatit 3,*

Transcription

1 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 Worradaluk 1, Jitti Mungkalasiri 3, Cheema Soralump 2, and Prakaytham Suksatit 3,* 1 Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Advanced and Sustainable Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand 2 Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand 3 National Metal and Materials Technology Center, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

2 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

3 INTRODUCTION 3/43

4 Problem Thailand is the world's fourth-largest chicken exporter (34% of total production). The demand of feed will increase in around million tons. (Thai Feed Mill Association, 2014) 2010 From: Global Trade Atlas (2013) 4/43

5 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) 5/43

6 Problem (continued) From: Sal Forest (2014) From: Russell S. (2014) From: Kaset Suk Sun (2015) 6/43

7 Life Cycle Assessment (ISO 14040, ISO 14044) Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation (RISE, version 2.0) Results Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment RouTine (SMART) Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, Impact assessment Guidelines 7/43

8 Literature Review 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). 8/43

9 OBJECTIVES 9/43

10 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

11 SCOPE OF WORK 11/43

12 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

13 S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y D E F I N I T I O N A N D S A F A 13/43

14 Sustainability Definition and SAFA What is the Sustainability? What is the Sustainability? The 2005 World Summit on Social Development identified 3 sustainable development goals; (1) Economic development, (2) Social development, and (3) Environmental protection. From: Thwink.org (2014) 14/43

15 Sustainability Definition and SAFA What is the SAFA? What is the SAFA? Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) Developed from FAO in October18, 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 From: FAO (2015) - a framework for assessing trade-offs and synergies between all dimensions of sustainability. 15/43

16 Sustainability Definition and SAFA 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 16/43

17 Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Framework SAFA Framework 17/43

18 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y 18/43

19 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

20 Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Methodology SAFA Methodology STEP 1: Mapping STEP 2: Contextualization STEP 3: Selecting tools and Indicators STEP 4: Reporting 20/43

21 Research Methodology Assessed Dimensions Assessed Dimensions of this study This study focused on Environmental Integrity and Social Well-Being. From: FAO (2015) 21/43

22 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

23 Research Methodology Maize cultivation technologies Maize Cultivation Technologies This assessment studied from 6 technologies, as followed; Irrigation Area Maize Cultivation Technologies Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) non-good Agricultural Practices (non-gap) Flat Area Flat Area non-irrigation Area Irrigation Area non-irrigation Area Irrigation Area Slope Area non-irrigation Area 23/43

24 Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Methodology SAFA Methodology STEP 1: Mapping STEP 2: Contextualization STEP 3: Selecting tools and Indicators STEP 4: Reporting 24/43

25 Assessed Indicators Research Methodology 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 /43

26 Assessed Indicators Research Methodology 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 /43

27 Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Methodology SAFA Methodology STEP 1: Mapping STEP 2: Contextualization STEP 3: Selecting tools and Indicators STEP 4: Reporting 27/43

28 Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Methodology Rating of Accuracy Score Criteria Accuracy Secondary Data Score 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? Is it primary data older than 5 years? 1 Are they estimations or proxies? 1 Actual Score The total number of indicators Average Score /43

29 Type of Indicators Research Methodology Assessing Methods (Environmental Integrity) 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

30 Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Methodology SAFA Methodology STEP 1: Mapping STEP 2: Contextualization STEP 3: Selecting tools and Indicators STEP 4: Reporting 30/43

31 Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Methodology % Best 60-80% Good 40-60% Moderate 20-40% Limited 0-20% Unacceptable 31/43

32 Research Methodology On-site Interviews. On-site Interviews 32 32/43

33 R E S U L T A N D D I S C U S S I O N 33/43

34 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

35 Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result Hotspots Sub-Theme from all technologies, Example: (GAP & non-gap) (1) Greenhouse Gas, 1 st Priority to Improve (2) Water Withdrawal, and (3) Energy Use. SUSTAINABILITY OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL SUB-THEME [GAP] % 100 [non-gap] GHG Air Quality Water Withdrawal Water Quality Soil Quality Land Degradation Material Use Energy Use Waste Reduction and Disposal 35/43

36 Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result Environmental Integrity % 100 SUSTAINABILITY OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR {GAP} [non-gap] /43

37 Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY Environmental Sustainability of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Cultivation Technologies (Indicators) Environmental Sustainability of non-good Agricultural Practices (non-gap) Cultivation Technologies (Indicators) Renewable Energy Energy Saving Practice Waste Disposal Waste Reduction Practice GHG Reduction Target GHG Mitigation Practice GHG Balance Air Pollution Reduction Target Air Pollution Reduction Practice Energy Saving Practice Waste Reduction Practice Renewable Energy Waste Disposal GHG Reduction Target GHG Mitigation Practice GHG Balance Air Pollution Reduction Target Air Pollution Reduction Practice Renewable Energy Use Target Ambient concentration of air pollutant Renewable Energy Use Target Ambient concentration of air pollutant Renewable and Recycle Materials Water Conservation Target Renewable and Recycle Materials Water Conservation Target Nutrient Balance Water Conservation Practices Nutrient Balance Water Conservation Practices Material Consumption Practice Ground and Surface Water Withdrawal Material Consumption Practice Ground and Surface Water Withdrawal Net loss/gain of Practice land Clean Water Target Net loss/gain of Practice land Clean Water Target Land Conservation and Rehabitation Practices Land Conservation and Rehabitation Plan Soil Organic Matter Soil Biological quality Soil Chemical quality Soil Improvement Practices Soil physical structure Water Pollutant Prevention Practices Concentration of water pollutant Land Conservation and Rehabitation Practices Land Conservation and Rehabitation Plan Soil Organic Matter Soil Biological quality Soil Chemical quality Soil Improvement Practices Soil physical structure Concentration of water pollutant Water Pollutant Prevention Practices [GAP]-[Flat area]-[irrigation area] [GAP]-[Flat area]-[non-irrigation area] [non-gap]-[flat area]-[irrigation area] [non-gap]-[flat area]-[non-irrigation area] GAP [non-gap]-[slope area]-[non-irrigation area] non-gap 37/43

38 Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result SOCIAL WELL-BEING Thai children (below 16 year-old) should help their parents for appropriate work without an employment, 100 [GAP] [non-gap] Forced Labour Child Labour Public Health Hired labour did not have (farmers use only family labour) Farmers are trained about Health protection and they followed to that technique. 38/43

39 Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result SUSTAINABILITY OF BOTH DIMENSIONS GHG Public Health Air Quality Child Labour Water Withdrawal Forced Labour Water Quality Waste Reduction and Disposal Soil Quality Energy Use Land Degradation Material Use 39 39/43

40 CONCLUSIONS 40/43

41 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. 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. 41/43

42 Acknowledgements Thailand Advanced Institute of Science and Technology and Tokyo Institute of Technology (TAIST-Tokyo Tech) National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC) 42/43

43 Mr. Aekkarun WORRADALUK Tel: , (+66)