Catalogue of Applications
The LEAP catalogue of applications contributes to FAO knowledge sharing and stimulates evidence-based climate action and environmental improvement of feed and livestock systems.
The catalogue allows any entity using the environmental assessment approaches in the FAO LEAP guidelines to disseminate the outcomes of own work and hence to mainstream innovation and best practices in policy and environmental management.
The catalogue will be updated on a continuous basis. The FAO LEAP Secretariat will select records on periodical basis to inform the FAO COAG Livestock SubCommittee and the Livestock, Climate and Environment (LCE) Community of Action also via the LEAP newsletter reaching more than 1,000 experts and policy makers.
To contribute to the FAO LEAP action, applicants are requested to fill out the reporting template available for download from here, and to submit the compiled form (filling out fields from page 6 to 8 is optional) to [email protected]
This catalogue contains information provided by applicants. No endorsement can be assumed by FAO and its LEAP partners. The applicants are the only responsible for the accuracy and truthfulness of the information in own submission.
1. Assessment of the national sectoral GHGs emissions from New Zealand livestock production
1. Assessment of the national sectoral GHGs emissions from New Zealand livestock production
Organization/Company | AgResearch |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact details | Stewart Ledgard |
Financial or implementing partners | Beef + Lamb New Zealand and Meat Industry Association and Ministry for Primary Industries |
LEAP guidelines applied | Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from small ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Main focus of the assessment | Livestock production |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories/Global, regional, and national environmental assessments. |
| To provide confidence in choices relating to methodology used (e.g. for allocation, data requirements) |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods used | GWP100 |
Major deviations from the LEAP guidelines | No major deviations. However, the study extended to a cradle-to-grave assessment and therefore included retail, consumer and end-of-life stages, which were not explicitly covered in the LEAP Guidelines [covering cradle-to-processing stages only] |
Internal or external review | Internal review and external review by appointed expert/certification/verification body |
Results/Findings | Carbon footprint per kg meat varied between approximately 13-15 kg CO2-equivalent/kg meat for a cradle-to-grave assessment for NZ sheep meat to different countries. Comparisons over time revealed a significant decrease in carbon footprint associated with increased sheep productivity |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Cost benefit analysis | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Testimony video clip | To be shared |
Links | Final reports are going through last peer-review process, but will be made available via NZ sector websites |
2. Assessment of the environmental sustainability of Canadian beef production systems
2. Assessment of the environmental sustainability of Canadian beef production systems
Livestock species | Beef |
Country | Canada |
Organization/business name | Canada- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact details | Tim McAllister |
Financial or implementing partners | Canada Beef Cattle Research Council/ Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef production |
LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used in the environmental assessment | Holos Greenhouse Gas Model |
Main focus of the assessment | Feed and livestock production. Environmental assessment of the sustainability of beef production systems including GHG emissions, feed production, biodiversity, water consumption, nutrient flows. |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level/Calculators and tools enabling to assess environmental performance improvement over time/ Policymaking/Research. |
| Procedures to define and assess the sustainability of Canadian Beef Cattle production including benchmarking and identification of best management practices |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | Used to generate outputs for research reports and scientific publications. |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP) |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | No major deviations. |
Internal or external review | External review |
Results/Findings | EM Boonstra, TA McAllister, GO Ribeiro, M Cordeiro, A Alemu, G Crow, K Ominski (2020) 173 Greenhouse gas emissions and land use associated with the removal of growth-enhancing technologies from backgrounding and finishing cattle in Canada: A case study. Journal of Animal Science 98 (Supplement_4), 125-126. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation |
|
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not assessed |
Testimony video clip | Not provided |
3. Quantifying the effects of feed additives on the environmental footprint of animal production
3. Quantifying the effects of feed additives on the environmental footprint of animal production
Livestock species | Broiler chicken, dairy cows and pigs |
Region/Country | Netherlands and Switzerland |
Organization/business name | Blonk and DSM Nutritional Products |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Hans Blonk |
Financial or implementing partners | None |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | Product Environmental Footprint Category 2 Rules Guidance – version 6.3 |
Main focus of the assessment | Livestock production. Changed environmental impact of livestock production with the use of feed additives using full LCA perspective |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Intervention at production level, including innovation. Intervention at system level (circular bio-economy) |
| The study explores, from a methodological standpoint, the applicability of the sector LCA guidelines (FAO LEAP and/or EC PEF) to modelling nutritional interventions based on the use of feed additives). To that end, the effects on animal performance of a diverse set of nutritional interventions (n=14 in total) including the use of feed enzymes, vitamins, carotenoids, and eubiotics have been documented via an extensive literature review (along with the FAO LEAP Guidelines for feed additives) and further translated into potential effects observable at farm level. Three terrestrial target species were studied: broiler chickens, dairy cows, and fattening pigs. The reference systems were Dutch and Belgian. The methodological exploration was reviewed by external experts with respect to ISO 14044 requirements for LCA. |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods used | The main purpose of the road-testing study was to explore, from a methodological standpoint, the applicability of the sector LCA guidelines (FAO LEAP and/or EC PEF) to modelling nutritional interventions (specifically, the use of feed additives). To that end, the effects on animal performance of a diverse set of nutritional interventions (n=14 in total) including the use of feed enzymes, vitamins, carotenoids, and eubiotics have been documented via an extensive literature review (along with the FAO LEAP Guidelines for feed additives) and further translated into potential effects observable at farm level. Three terrestrial target species were studied: broiler chickens, dairy cows, and fattening pigs. The reference systems were Dutch and Belgian. The methodological exploration was reviewed by external experts with respect to ISO 14044 requirements for LCA. |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | Main deviations from the LEAP guidelines are: |
Internal or external review | External, ISO compliant review by appointed expert/certification/verification body. |
Results/Findings | The study confirms the applicability of the available sector LCA guidelines to evaluate nutritional interventions for improving animal productivity, animal health, lifetime performance or emissions. Nevertheless, more detailed guidance and more consistency between the guidelines (PEF and LEAP) would be helpful. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Environmental implications (e.g., environmental risk assessment) where not assessed in the study. Mid-point LCA results change due to the use of additives were calculated in case studies (with the main goal of testing LCA methodology framework). The study also confirmed that the use of feed additives has a positive environmental impact over the entire lifecycle. Except in one case (for a product with a high inclusion rate), the environmental impact of the production of feed additives is confirmed to be relatively negligible compared to the positive impacts delivered, which can amount to up to a 10% improvement (cumulative effect for some impacts and some species) as per our assessment. |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | It was not assessed explicitly, but all studied interventions are realistic from a farm business perspective (positive return of investment) |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | All the interventions evaluated resort to supplementation with feed additives, all being evaluated as safe and efficacious by EU or US safety agencies, for example |
Testimony video clip | Not provided |
Promotional video clip and links | Not provided |
Links |
4. Enviromental assessment of intergrated livestock production at farm level
4. Enviromental assessment of intergrated livestock production at farm level
Livestock species | Beef and dairy |
Region/Country | The guidelines have been used in Italy often contextually with the use of the partners from EU and non-EU countries. |
Organization/business name |
|
Website url | https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/202 https://www.crea.gov.it/ |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | David Meo Zilio |
Financial or implementing partners | There were several implementing partners consisting of research and projects partners as well as farmers and stakeholders. CREA is very active in that field and participates to various scientific projects regarding livestock sustainability, life cycle assessment, water use in livestock production, supply chains and so on. LEAP guidelines are the standard reference. |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | FIL-IDF (2015) |
Main focus of the assessment | Livestock production/Integrated production at farm level |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Sustainable sourcing of feed and livestock. Global, regional, and national environmental assessments. |
| Projects regarding aforementioned options: |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),Water productivity (WP) |
Impact assessment methods used | ILCD; ReCiPe; AWARE; BWSI |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline |
|
Internal or external review | Internal review, External ISO compliant review by appointed expert/certification/verification body. |
Results/Findings | CREA is committed to improving environmental sustainability, in line with the climate objectives of the European Union as part of the Green New Deal and with the objective of fighting change which is one of the nine specific objectives of the CAP 2023 2027. CREA-Animal Production and Aquaculture Centre was engaged in LIFE project (BEEF CARBON) which contributed to disseminate the strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from beef farms in the major European producing countries (France, Ireland, Italy and Spain). This project has shown that it is possible to significantly reduce the carbon footprint of beef by adopting several techniques now available. The project also laid the foundations for a second LIFE (CARBON FARMING) project, just approved, aimed at establishing a public-private incentive system for the application of these strategies. There are various qualifying aspects of this new activity: the adoption, for example, of a common system among six European countries of a system of evaluation, verification and communication of the results deriving from the application of best practices or the organization of a system trading in emission reduction or carbon sequestration allowances. This activity is carried out in collaboration with some researchers of the Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy of CREA. In the beef sector, CREA-ZA has just concluded the Sustainbeef project, within the framework of the SusAn program. The aim was the reduction of the competition between humans and animals for edible food resources. The main systems of beef production in Europe were characterized. Various indicators of environmental, economic and social sustainability were identified and the impact related to the introduction of various technological or organizational innovations assessed, through an interaction of the actors of the entire supply chain. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not assessed |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not assessed |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
5. Global assessment of livestock systems
5. Global assessment of livestock systems
Livestock species | Livestock |
Region/Country | Global level country by country |
Organization/business name | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Timothy P. Robinson |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4; |
Main focus of the assessment | Feed and livestock production. Livestock products processing. |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Sustainable sourcing of feed and livestock. National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories. |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ; Nutrient use efficiency (NUE) |
Impact assessment methods used | GWP100 with carbon feedbacks from AR5 IPCC report (2014) |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | Classification of technical outputs in co-products, residues and waste doesn't match with the LEAP guidelines due to the lack of data on economic value of technical outputs. |
Internal or external review | Internal review. |
Results/Findings | GLEAM version 3.0 assessment ongoing. Results to be inserted when available. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Inventory data sharing | Yes, data can be shared upon request. |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
Links | NOTE: new materials and resources will be added as soon as available |
6. Assessment involving farmers in reducing GHGs emissions and increasing carbon sequestration
6. Assessment involving farmers in reducing GHGs emissions and increasing carbon sequestration
Livestock species | Dairy, beef and sheep |
Region/ Country | France (By the end of 2021, CAP’2ER® will be developed for European countries) |
Organization/business name | Institut de l’Elevage – French Livestock Institute, France |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact details | Jean Baptiste Dolle |
Financial or implementing partners | Partners who are implementing CAP’2ER® in farms: |
LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | IPCC tier 2, tier 3, EU and national database, IDF guideline |
Main focus of the assessment | Livestock production. Integrated production at farm level. |
How the country/organization has used the LEAP guidelines | Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | The assessment is used for involving farmers in reducing GHG emissions & increasing carbon sequestration and answering sectors commitments. |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This is a cradle to farm gate LCA assessment (considering feed purchased, fertilizers, energy, on-site emissions). The methodology concerns the calculation of GHGs emissions/ carbon sequestrationn and other environmental burdens (wtaer quality, air quality, energy, biodiversity) |
Impact assessment methods used |
|
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | None |
Internal or external review | External review by accredited certification/verification body |
Results/Findings | 22 400 CAP’2ER® audits have been done in ruminant production systems and permitted to create a national observatory (national database) |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Adaptation to climate change |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Some techniques are cost effective and some of them represent an extra cost. The economic assessment is done by advisers when they build the mitigation action plan (after the farm audit CAP’2ER®) |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Inventory data sharing | The national CAP’2ER® database includes activity data and environmental results for each farm involved. |
Testimony video clip | |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
Links |
|
7. LCA database on feed production
7. LCA database on feed production
Livestock species | Multiple |
Country | Global |
Organization/business name | Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI) |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Delanie Kellon, Arjen Voortman |
Region/Country | The database currently includes regional datasets from: Canada; Europe and USA, and sectoral datasets from European Fat Processors and Renderers Association (EFPRA). |
Financial or implementing partners | The founding associations (AFIA, ANAC, FEFAC, IFIF) and consortium partners funded the original GFLI project, the development of the database, and the collection and integration of the first data-in projects.. Founding members of the non-profit Institute legally registered in USA: |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | EU PEF for Feed for Food Producing Animals |
Main focus of the assessment | Feed production |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Life cycle databases |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | Not stated |
Internal or external review | Internal review |
Results/Findings | The result of the application of the “Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment” was the development of the GFLI Methodology.The GFLI database consists of the LCA of raw materials from various regions in the world. To ensure the quality and standardization of the data, GFLI formed a FAO-LEAP and EU-PEF compliant methodology with the following inclusions to the dataset. The system boundary is cradle-to-farm gate, which includes all life cycle stages up to the delivery of the feed to the farm, as well as feed mill operations and logistics. With three allocations at co-production, which are economic, mass dry matter, and energy content and supporting 15 impact categories, the database allows meaningful environmental assessment of animal nutrition products and stimulate continuous improvement of the environmental performance in the animal nutrition and food industry. GFLI’s methodology is built on four reference documents to adhere to globally standardized guidelines of FAO and EU standards, namely the FAO LEAP feed guidelines (2016), LEAP feed additives guidelines (2020), Feed PEF database methodology (2017), and Feed PEFCR (2018). The methodology is followed in order to integrate datasets into the GFLI database (https://globalfeedlca.org/gfli-database/gfli-database-tool/). |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Inventory data sharing | GFLI’s aggregated impact (LCIA) and inventory (LCI) data is publicly available for free download from the GFLI website (https://globalfeedlca.org/gfli-database/gfli-database-tool/) after accepting the conditions of the GFLI End User License Agreement (EULA). |
Testimony video clip | Not provided |
Promotional video clip and links | Not yet available |
Links | https://globalfeedlca.org/gfli-database/methodology-scope/ |
8. Environmental assessment of the livestock sector
8. Environmental assessment of the livestock sector
Livestock species | Dairy, beef, chicken and sheep |
Region/Country | Canada |
Organization/business name | Groupe AGÉCO, Canada |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Hugues Imbeault-Tétreault |
Financial or implementing partners | Dairy Farmers of Canada, Éleveurs de porcs du Québec, Chicken Farmers of Canada, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, Ontario Sheep |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | ISO 14044, ISO 14067, IDF guidelines, previous FAO LCA guidelines, IPCC 2006, ISO 14046 |
Main focus of the assessment | Feed and livestock production |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Global, regional, and national environmental assessments. Product-oriented environmental communication (e.g. low-carbon livestock, environmental footprint). |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods used Further details | ReCiPe |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | No |
Internal or external review | Internal review |
Results/Findings | The 2018 study, conducted by Groupe AGECO, a firm specializing in agri-food economy and corporate responsibility, characterizes the environmental performance of Canadian milk production in 2016 and compares it with data from 2011. It assesses several environmental issues, including carbon footprint, water consumption, and land use. Results indicate that environmentally-friendly farm practices, such as more crop rotations, better feed, reduced tillage and precision agriculture techniques, as well as increased milk production per cow explain improvements in those environmental profiles. In fact, the quantity of milk produced per cow has increased by 13% from 2011 to 2016. (https://dairyfarmersofcanada.ca/en/dairy-in-canada/news-releases/ageco-study-results-reveal-improved-environmental-impact-and-efficiency-canadian-milk-production) |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
Links | https://dairyfarmersofcanada.ca/ |
9. Adaptation strategies for improved water management in an organic dairy farm in Brandenburg, Germany
9. Adaptation strategies for improved water management in an organic dairy farm in Brandenburg, Germany
Livestock species | Dairy |
Country | Germany |
Organization/business name | Humboldt, Germany |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Katrin Drastig, Stella Birk |
Region/Country | Brandenburg, Germany |
Financial or implementing partners | Not stated |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Water use in livestock production systems and supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | Not stated |
Main focus of the assessment | Feed and livestock production. |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Research (Bachelor thesis in German language) |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | Not applicable |
Assessement framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) | Water productivity (WP) |
Impact assessment methods used | The topic of this bachelor's thesis was to analyse a case study applying methods of the LEAP Water TAG guidelines to assess potential adaption strategies to raise water productivity and reduce water use impact of livestock production systems and supply chains. Water productivty was used for an evaluation basis for improving the use of water in the organic dairy farm in Brandenburg (Germany) |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | The water scarcity factor (WSF) was not calculated |
Internal or external review | Internal review |
Results/Findings | In summary, the LEAP guidelines for evaluation and the AgroHyd farm model are suitable for calculating the water productivity of an organic farm. Although this work does not assess the contribution to regional water scarcity, this contribution is expected to be relatively small due to the extensive production system. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
10. Assessment of the carbon footprint, aquatic eutrophication and ecotoxicology from feed production
10. Assessment of the carbon footprint, aquatic eutrophication and ecotoxicology from feed production
Livestock Species | Large ruminants |
Region/Country | CoUruguay; Departments of Durazno, Flores, Rivera, Salto. |
Organization/business name | Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Uruguay |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Leonidas Carrasco-Letelier |
Financial or implementing partners | UFFIP Project developed by Plan Agropecuario, INIA, Ministry and AgResearch (New Zealand) |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | We followed the methodology suggested by the FAO LEAP guidelines. First, we organized all the information of LCI by sub-systems on a spreadsheet and, second, the information was transferred to OpenLCA. At the case that were possible, we used primary data and for secondary data we used Agribalyse database. We used an allocation based on mass balance (physical allocation procedure) for each subsystem used for produce a kind of feed |
Main focus of the assessment | Feed production |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Life cycle databases. Intervention at production level, including innovation. Research. |
| To improve future agricultural inputs of this kind of production |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods | We focused our impact assessment on climate change (carbon footprint), aquatic eutrophication and ecotoxicology |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | Three were the deviations from the FAO LEAP guidelines. |
Internal or external review | Internal review |
Results/Findings | We compared two representative cattle production systems. For this study, we starting from analyzing existing environmental database of selected farms, from which 3 representative farms with two degrees of intensification were chosen: extensive grazing and improved extensive grazing, the two major cattle production systems at country level. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | INIA Uruguay is running now a research project granted by the National Agency of Research and Innovation for the comparison of ecotoxicological footprint assessments with ecotoxicological assessment of local ecosystems related to cropping rotation systems. |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | This assessment will allow an improvement on farm’s inputs records first, a first identification of hotspot to work on the reduction of carbon footprints. |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | In any case, an intervention/innovation always will go in the direction that improves the public health, ecosystem health and food security; according the current legal regulation of Uruguay |
Inventory data sharing | All data will be shared with FAO after these estimations are published in a peer-reviewed journal |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
Links |
11. Analysis of land use management, biodiversity and livestock
11. Analysis of land use management, biodiversity and livestock
Livestock species | Cattle, sheep |
Region/Country | Uruguay |
Organization/business name | Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Uruguay |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Oscar Blumetto |
Financial or implementing partners | Research project supported by INIA and INAC |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Biodiversity and the livestock sector: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | Not stated |
Main focus of the assessment | Livestock production. The case study was conducted on farms with a mixed livestock system (cows and sheep) in areas ranging between 2000 and 5000 hectares. Three farms had 100% production based on rangeland (natural grasslands with different proportion of shrubs, isolated trees and small groups of trees) while the other three had 30% of their area with sown pastures. |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Product-oriented environmental communication (e.g. low-carbon livestock, environmental footprint). Research. |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework | Pressure State Response (PSR) |
Impact assessment methods used Further details | As recommended for local assessment, the Pressure-StateResponse framework was applied. The whole recommended list of indicators in the LEAP biodiversity guidelines was used, and additional indicators were added. |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | Not stated |
Internal or external review | Internal review |
Results/Findings | The application of ecosystem integrity index (EII) gave an overview of the ecosystem state and showed global values ranging from 3.1 to 4.0 as displayed in Figure 1. There are variations between paddocks within every farm, and EEI is a bit lower in farms with 30 % of pastures (B, E and F). Nevertheless, the connectivity of different ecosystems is still good for all the farms. Regarding to wildlife communities, 196 species of birds were recorded overall, 26 of these species are included in priority conservation lists (Soutullo et al, 2013). We recorded 162 species for natural grasslands, 89 species in sown pastures and 90 species in natural forests, 16 of which are exclusive from this environment. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | This work is the first road testing of this guide in local level analysis (farm or landscape). The set of recommended indicators published in the public review version, was applied without technical problems. Both general information and farmer individual data were adequately accessible and it was also possible to collect data on pressure or response indicators. However, these indicators have relative low value if we do not have adequate state indicators to measure the consequences of management measures taken (response) or land uses and management of production systems (pressures). The state indicators are only three: species richness or diversity, particular species (with high conservation value) and biological indicators of water quality. These indicators have really a wide spectrum of possible applications related to variables or taxonomic groups to investigate, but then, the results delivered depends on how comprehensive the study is conducted. In our case, the inclusion of flora (herbaceous and woody), birds, fishes and spiders, provides a wide overview of plants, vertebrates and invertebrates. These kinds of studies are very demanding, in time and money, to carry out. Every group requires a certain number of specialists. Some data can be recorded in one go, but most of them need multiple field visits, often seasonal assessments. The EII is a less demanding state indicator at ecosystem level, which is compatible with a life cycle thinking approach, provided its feature to also look into off-farm feed production. Nevertheless, it persists the necessity of obtaining some information at species or community level. |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
Links | Wil be available as scientific publication and thesis document. Some results will be presented as oral presentation at IRC-IGC 2021, Kenya |
12. Environmental footprint methodology development
12. Environmental footprint methodology development
Livestock species | Multiple |
Region/Country | European Union |
Organization/business name | European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Unit D3, LCA team |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Simone Fazio |
Financial or implementing partners | No |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | Feed additives, Water, Nutrients and Biodiversity are now under evaluation as possible inputs in the framework of the Agriculture Working Group of the Technical Advisory Board (TAB of the Environmental Footprint - EF), in order to improve modelling in agricultural systems in the EF framework. |
Main focus of the assessment | Methodological integration in the framework of the Environmental Footprint (EF) scheme. The LEAP guidelines are applied (or evaluated) as methodological sources for the improvement of modelling in the framework of the Environmental Footprint method update. |
How the country/organization has used the LEAP guidelines | Product-oriented environmental communication (e.g. low-carbon livestock, environmental footprint). Life cycle databases. Policymaking. |
| The guidelines are either partly implemented in the current EF method report or discussed as options for improvement of modelling in the EF scheme. |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods used | The LEAP guidelines are so far used in the EF scheme more at the level of modelling, the implementation at the impact assessment level is under discussion within the Agricultural Working Group of the EF TAB, where also further modelling issues are under discussion. |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | The guides were not adopted as such. The implementation of specific points in LEAP guidelines have been implemented to solve specific issues in EF method, particularly for handling multi-functional processes in agriculture and averaging data to deal with crop seasonality, the rules described in the LEAP guideline shall be followed: Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains (pages 36-43). Additionally, for Allocation within the farm module for sheep and goat, some default values have been picked from the small rumuinants guideline. |
Internal or external review | Internal review |
Testimony video clip |
13. Assessment of soil carbon stock changes at a national level
13. Assessment of soil carbon stock changes at a national level
Livestock species | Ruminants |
Country | New Zealand |
Organization/business name | Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, New Zealand |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Peter Millard |
Financial or implementing partners | Funding for the work was provided by the NZ Ministry for Primary Industries, through the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Centre |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes in livestock production systems: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | We used the LEAP soil C guidelines to develop a national- scale soil carbon inventory to assess changes in soil carbon stocks across five different land use classes, capable of detecting a stock change of two tonnes per hectare. |
Main focus of the assessment | Soil carbon sequestration |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories. Research |
| The guidelines were used for the methodology for soil sampling and carbon analyses and calculation of stock changes |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework | Soil carbon stocks inventory |
Impact assessment methods used | The methodology being followed is for soil, sampling, analysis and calculation of carbon stocks. At present we are making the first baseline measurements at 700 randomly chosen sampling sites across the country. This will be followed by repeat measurements in subsequent years to detect any changes in carbon stock (with a minimum detectible difference of two tonnes per hectare). |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | We had to use spatial statistics to design the sampling regime to detect the minimal difference in stock we had set. This was not covered in the LEAP guidelines, so we had to work out how to do this in order to design the programme. |
Internal or external review | None |
Results/Findings Description and external links | |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
14. Assessment of the environmental impact of management changes in cattle systems
14. Assessment of the environmental impact of management changes in cattle systems
Livestock species | Cattle, sheeps |
Region/Country | Uruguay |
Organization/business name | Plan Agropecuario, Uruguay |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Gonzalo Becoña |
Financial or implementing partners | UFFIP Project developed by Plan Agropecuario, INIA, Ministry and AgResearch (New Zealand) |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | Not stated |
Main focus of the assessment | Livestock production, Integrated production at farm level |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Global, regional, and national environmental assessments. Calculators and tools enabling to assess environmental performance improvement over time. Intervention at system level (circular bio-economy). Policymaking. Research. |
| LEAP guidelines were used in the development of a tool to assess environmental performance that helps research processes give information to policy makers, and as a way train agronomist and students. |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | In a past project, the tool was used to inform about environmental impact in cattle systems after implementation of management changes in the system. Nowadays, the tool is used by regional government to assess nutrient balance of farms at catchment level |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods used Further details | Not stated |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | No |
Internal or external review | External review by accredited certification/verification body |
Results/Findings | Cattle and sheep systems in Uruguay and worldwide are called to reduce their environmental footprint while increasing efficiency and production. The EMAG (Evaluación Medio Ambiental Ganadera) model accounts for multiple environmental and resource use indicators of nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) balances and losses, greenhouse gas emissions and use of fossil energy. Results are provided on a per-hectare and per-kg product basis. This decision support tool for cattle and sheep farmers systems is based on life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology from “cradle-to-farm gate” for all resources use indicators. It uses national parameters and in case of lack of information is supplied from international research in pastoral systems. The model relies on a tier 2 animal energy methodology to account for animal productivity and management practices. EMAG is a user-friendly tool that requires basic information to model a farm system, namely: land use (forage types used uniquely for natural grassland in Uruguay), animal management (beef cattle and sheep), farm inputs (fertilizers, supplementary feeds, seeds and agrochemicals) and fossil energy (fuel and electricity) used in the system. EMAG can help identify hot-spots of emissions and resource use, as well as to evaluate changes over time. In addition, it can be used to test cattle or sheep management practices or evaluate mitigation options within the system. By providing multiple indicators, EMAG can be used to provide information to address “trade-offs” between environmental impacts when assessing future options. In summary, EMAG is a decision-support tool developed with the objective of evaluating the environmental performance of cattle and sheep systems, that help farmers in decision making and different stakeholders according to their interest. Please find in the following link, a publication showcasing the use EMAG with a case study. IN particular, the paper reports shows potential benefits of improving environmental efficiency and come to interesting results around negative P balance when increased productivity in a system is achieved. The application focus on improvement measures through changes in management practices. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | GHG emissions and intensity, nutrient balance and losses and fossil energy used |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Economic impact was assessed in terms of net income of the system. Social impact was not assessed but was reported by the achievement of family goals due to reduce environmental impact was key goal. |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Testimony video clip | |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
15. Setting up a national GHGs inventory system
15. Setting up a national GHGs inventory system
Livestock species | Livestock |
Region/Country | Kenya |
Organization/business name | State Department for Livestock (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperatives), Kenya |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Robin Mbae |
Financial or implementing partners | CCAFS, FAO-Rome, KDB, UNIQUE |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | Not stated |
Main focus of the assessment | Feed production. Livestock production.Livestock products processing. |
How the country/organizationused the LEAP guidelines | National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories. Intervention at production level, including innovation. Intervention at system level (circular bio-economy). Policymaking. Research. |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | Sectoral contribution to the Country’s commitment on Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) as part of mitigation of GHGs from livestock |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods used Further details | Environmental impact at Production, Waste, Energy and Transportation stages |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | None |
Internal or external review | Internal review |
Results/Findings | The results are based on baseline scenario and have not been compared since no new data has been generated. Subsequent analysis and comparison will be conducted after implementation of the proposed Dairy Programme. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Inventory data sharing | The database is under GLEAM tool. However, this can be shared at a later stage upon consultation with our partners who were involved in the programme |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
16. Assessment of the national GHGs and nitrogen flows from beef and dairy production systems
16. Assessment of the national GHGs and nitrogen flows from beef and dairy production systems
Livestock species | Beef, dairy |
Region/Country | United States, all regions |
Organization/business name | US Dept. of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service, United States of America |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | C. Alan Rotz |
Financial or implementing partners | National Cattlemen’s Beef Association |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | Not stated |
Main focus of the assessment | Livestock production. Integrated production at farm level. |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Global, regional, and national environmental assessments. |
Further details | National Assessments of the environmental impacts of beef cattle and dairy production |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods used | Process level simulation of production systems with LCA |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | Not stated |
Internal or external review | External review by appointed expert/certification/verification body. |
Results/Findings | U.S. dairy farms were assessed to emit 99,000 ± 8,480 Gg CO2e of greenhouse gas (GHG), equivalent to 1.5% of the estimated U.S. total GHG emission, with a commodity-based intensity of 1.01 ± 0.09 kg CO2e/kg of fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) produced. Fossil energy consumption was 242,700 ± 38,400 TJ, 0.3% of the U.S. total, or 2.48 ± 0.39 MJ/kg FPCM. Blue (non-precipitation) water consumption was 11,600 ± 2,480 Tg, roughly 3.0% of the estimated U.S. total freshwater use, with an intensity of 119 ± 25 kg/kg FPCM. While these environmental footprints represent a small portion of the respective national inventories, the dairy industry’s contribution to reactive nitrogen (N) losses appears to be considerably greater. Losses of reactive N were estimated at 970 ± 133 Gg, with an intensity of 9.92 ± 1.36 g/kg FPCM. Although there are no national estimates of total reactive N emissions, dairy farms were found to contribute 19 – 24% of national inventories of ammonia (NH3) emissions. The average annual greenhouse gas and reactive N emissions associated with beef cattle production over the past five years was determined to be 244 ± 26 Tg CO2e and 1789 ± 138 Gg N, respectively. Total fossil energy use was found to be 577 ± 55 PJ and blue water consumption was 22.4 ± 3.4 Pg. Environmental intensities expressed per kg of carcass weight produced were 21.5 ± 2.3 kg CO2e, 157 ± 12 g N, 50.7 ± 4.8 MJ, and 1970 ± 300 L, respectively. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Inventory data sharing | Yes |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
17. FARM environmental Stewardship
17. FARM environmental Stewardship
Livestock species | Dairy |
Region/Country | USA, national level, and regional level (5 regions: northeast, southeast, Midwest, west, southwest) |
Organization/business name | Dairy/Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, USA |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact name | Ying Wang |
Financial or implementing partners | The dairy check-off program is the funder of the program. |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment | The LEAP soil carbon stock guide will be integrated into next version of FARM ES module. The carbon sequestration will be taken into account. |
Main focus of the assessment | Livestock production |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Sustainable sourcing of feed and livestock. National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories. Environmental reporting system at business level. Life cycle databases. Calculators and tools enabling to assess environmental performance improvement over time. Research |
|
|
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | The assessment will be used to report the industry sector level GHG reduction, also report the Net Zero Goal toward 2050. |
Assessement framework | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods used Further details | |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | No |
Internal or external review | External review by appointed expert/certification/verification body |
Results/Findings | The LEAPmethodology has been incorporated into the FARM (Farmers Assuring Responsibly Management) Environmental Stewardship Module. The FARM Environmental Stewardship module asks a set of questions to assess a farm’s carbon and energy footprint – reducing the burden on farmers while still providing reliable, statistically robust estimates that explain 98% of the variability in total carbon footprint. The backbone methodology is based on the LEAP guideline.The assessment focuses on the environmental reporting and progress reporting. Private entities, brands are also encouraged to use the tool to do environmental reporting. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Assessement inventory data sharing? | No |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
Links | https://nationaldairyfarm.com/dairy-farm-standards/environmental-stewardship/ |
18. The effect of improvements in feed crop production water use on the water productivity of pig and poultry production systems
18. The effect of improvements in feed crop production water use on the water productivity of pig and poultry production systems
Livestock species | Pigs, Poultry |
Country | Brazil |
Organization/business name | Leibniz-Institut für Agrartechnik und Bioökonomie e.V. (ATB) |
Website url | https://www.atb-potsdam.de/de/ |
Submission Year | 2021 |
Contact details | Sofia Helena Zanella Carra, Katrin Drastig, Vania Elisabete Schneider, Julio Cesar Pascale Palhares |
Country, region, province and/or district project | The area of study is the Lajeado Tacongava watershed (148.78 km2) which is located in the Northeast region of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil. The watershed is partially comprised of four cities with tradition in agriculture and livestock production: União da Serra, Serafina Correa, Montauri and Guaporé. |
Financial or implementing partners | The research project has been developed in Germany at the Leibniz-Institut für Agrartechnik und Bioökonomie (ATB) through the PhD project of Sofia Helena Zanella Carra who was awarded with a DAAD scholarship (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst). Partners of the project: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária EMBRAPA and Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS). |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Water use in livestock production systems and supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Subject of the assessment | Water productivity indicators for feed crops in the broiler fattening production stage. |
How the country/organization has used the LEAP guidelines | Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Product-oriented environmental communication (e.g. low-carbon livestock, environmental footprint). Policy making. Research. |
The aim of the study was to evaluate water productivity indicators of broiler and pig production in a Southern Brazilian watershed. It aimed (a) to investigate water demand by livestock production systems through a water productivity assessment, and (b) to evaluate the importance of best practices uptake for raising water productivity of feed production and hence increase the sustainability of livestock production systems in Brazil. | |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | The study aimed to assess water productivity gains in pig and poultry production systems from the improvement of crop farming practices in a Southern Brazilian watershed. |
Assessment framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) | Water productivity (WP) |
Impact assessment methods used | The water productivity (WP) was calculated for broilers in the fattening stage, and for pigs covered both feed and animal production stages accounting for direct and indirect water inflows, according to the FAO LEAP Guidelines. The boundaries of the system were cradle-to-farm gate. This study applied a bottom-up approach where farm specific data were used to calculate a detailed WP. WP was calculated in three references units: on a mass basis, food energy basis and on a monetary basis. Water used for animal feed production was calculated as actual evapotranspiration of the crops through the modeling software AgroHyd Farm model, which is based on the FAO’s 56 dual crop coefficient method. The direct water inflows were animal drinking and water for services. WP was also reported with fractions of green and blue water consumed (% blue water/% green water) as defined by the FAO Guidelines. The Monte Carlo simulation was applied for uncertainty data analyses. |
Major deviations from the LEAP guideline | According to the guidelines published by the FAO, the overall water productivity metric of a production system incorporating indirect water use shall be accompanied by the water scarcity footprint of the analyzed system. Due to the fact that the main focus in the study was to improve the insight about the green water demand for maize and soy rainfed crops, the water scarcity footprint (WSF) was not analyzed. |
Review | External review by appointed expert/certification/verification body. |
Results | Water productivity of broiler feed consumption ranged (a) from 0.63 to 1.38 kg per m3 water input for rainfed summer maize (safra, in Portuguese), (b) from 1.20 to 2.21 kg per m3 water input for winter maize (safrinha, in Portuguese), and (c) from 0.28 to 0.95 kg per m3 water input for rainfed soy. WP of pig feed consumption ranged from 0.68 to 1.49 kg per m3 water input for rainfed maize (safra), (b) from 1.30 to 2.38 kg per m3 water input for winter maize (safrinha), (c) from 0.30 to 1.03 kg per m3 water input for rainfed soy. A potential water saving of 0.0336 km3 year-1 and 0.0202 km3 year-1 could be attained from feed production associated to broilers and pigs, respectively, depending on the crop rotation and producer region. The results showed that the evapotranspiration of animal feed production represents more than 99% of the total water consumption for broiler and pig production in the area investigated. The uptake of improved crop farming practices resulted in higher water productivity values for chicken and pork meat and also resulted in increased rainfall water-saving in comparison to the baseline scenario. Therefore, increasing water productivity of livestock production systems in tropical regions requires a value chain management approach with a focus on feed crop production. The guidelines published by the FAO can be applied in the assessment of farming management practices to improve rainwater productivity in livestock production. The full results can be found in the article: The Effect of Best Crop Practices in the Pig and Poultry Production on Water Productivity in a Southern Brazilian Watershed (https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113014). |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Not assessed |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Inventory data sharing | No |
Testimony video clip | |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
Links | Sofia Helena Zanella Carra, Julio Cesar Pascale Palhares, Katrin Drastig, and Vania Elisabete Schneider (2020), The Effect of Best Crop Practices in the Pig and Poultry Production on Water Productivity in a Southern Brazilian Watershed. Water, 12 (11) (https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113014) |
19. Carbon footprint of New Zealand beef and sheep meat exported to different market
19. Carbon footprint of New Zealand beef and sheep meat exported to different market
Livestock species | Sheep and beef cattle |
Country | New Zealand |
Organization/business name | New Zealand/National Agricultural Research/AgResearch |
Website url | |
Submission Year | 2022 |
Contact name | Prof Stewart Ledgard |
Financial or implementing partners | Ministry for Primary Industries |
FAO LEAP guidelines | Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) |
Additional methodology has been used for the environmental assessment | New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Inventory methodology |
Main focus of the assessment | Livestock production. Livestock products processing. Integrated production at farm level LCA of livestock products through full supply chain, with focus on carbon footprinting. |
How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines | Global, regional, and national environmental assessments. Product-oriented environmental communication (e.g. low-carbon livestock, environmental footprint). LEAP guided the methods applied for the base system analyses of product carbon footprints. |
Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment | No |
Assessment framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) |
Impact assessment methods used Further details | Climate change |
Internal or external review | Internal review |
Results/Findings | The total GHG emissions from agricultural production on NZ sheep and beef farms calculated was approximately 18.7 million t CO2e for the cradle-to-farm-gate emissions from total NZ meat and wool (excluding dairy beef). The estimates of net carbon (C) sequestration associated with woody vegetation within sheep and beef farms across NZ equated to approximately 5.5 million t CO2/year. |
Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed | Sensitivity analyses revealed that trees within NZ sheep and beef farms have carbon sequestration equivalent to 29% of the cradle-to-farm-gate carbon footprint. Implications of considering GWP* in an LCA framework were also assessed in a Sensitivity Analysis. |
Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation | Not applicable |
Inventory data sharing | Not applicable |
Testimony video clip | Not applicable |
Promotional video clip and links | Not applicable |
Links | https://beeflambnz.com/sites/default/files/levies/files/BLNZ_review_report.pdf |