Building consensus on water use assessment of livestock production systems and supply chains: outcome and recommendations from the FAO LEAP partnership.

The FAO Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership organised a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to develop reference guidelines on water footprinting for livestock production systems and supply chains. The mandate of the TAG was to i) provide recommendations to monitor the environmental performance of feed and livestock supply chains over time so that progress towards improvement targets can be measured, ii) be applicable for feed and water demand of small ruminants, poultry, large ruminants and pig supply chains, iii) build on, and go beyond, the existing FAO LEAP guidelines and iv) pursue alignment with relevant international standards, specifically ISO 14040 (2006)/ISO 14044 (2006), and ISO 14046 (2014). The recommended guidelines on livestock water use address both impact assessment (water scarcity footprint as defined by ISO 14046, 2014) and water productivity (water use efficiency). While most aspects of livestock water use assessment have been proposed or discussed independently elsewhere, the TAG reviewed and connected these concepts and information in relation with each other and made recommendations towards comprehensive assessment of water use in livestock production systems and supply chains. The approaches to assess the quantity of water used for livestock systems are addressed and the specific assessment methods for water productivity and water scarcity are recommended. Water productivity assessment is further advanced by its quantification and reporting with fractions of green and blue water consumed. This allows the assessment of the environmental performance related to water use of a livestock-related system by assessing potential environmental impacts of anthropogenic water consumption (only ?blue water?); as well as the assessment of overall water productivity of the system (including ?green? and ?blue water? consumption). A consistent combination of water productivity and water scarcity footprint metrics provides a complete picture both in terms of potential productivity improvements of the water consumption as well as minimizing potential environmental impacts related to water scarcity. This process resulted for the first time in an international consensus on water use assessment, including both the life-cycle assessment community with the water scarcity footprint and the water management community with water productivity metrics. Despite the main focus on feed and livestock production systems, the outcomes of this LEAP TAG are also applicable to many other agriculture sectors

Water, land and carbon footprints of sheep and chicken meat produced in Tunisia under different farming systems

Meat production puts larger demands on water and land and results in larger greenhouse gas emissions than alternative forms of food. This study uses footprint indicators, the water, land and carbon footprint, to assess natural resources use and greenhouse gas emissions for sheep and chicken meat produced in Tunisia in different farming systems in the period 1996–2005. Tunisia is a water-scarce country with large areas of pasture for sheep production. Poultry production is relatively large and based on imported feed. The farming systems considered are: the industrial system for chicken, and the agro-pastoral system using cereal crop-residues, the agro-pastoral system using barley and the pastoral system using barley for sheep. Chicken meat has a smaller water footprint (6030 litre/kg), land footprint (9 m2/kg) and carbon footprint (3 CO2-eq/kg) than sheep meat (with an average water footprint of 18900 litre/kg, land footprint of 57 m2/kg, and carbon footprint of 28 CO2-eq/kg). For sheep meat, the agro-pastoral system using cereal crop-residues is the production system with smallest water and land footprints, but the highest carbon footprint. The pastoral system using barley has larger water and land footprints than the agro-pastoral system using barley, but comparable carbon footprint