Post on 29-Jul-2020
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
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
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
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
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
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
Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA 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 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
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
Sustainability Definition and SAFA SAFA Methodology
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
Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result
Environmental Integrity
{GAP} [non-GAP]
SUSTAINABILITY OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR
100
80
60
40
20
%
36/43
Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result
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
Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result
[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
Result and Discussion Sustainability Assessment Result
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: Ukrit_bill@outlook.co.th