Environmental Analysis Discussions and Conclusions

Answering the question “is the Zimbabwean VC sustainable?” is difficult because LCA indicators are not binary. There are no threshold values for the different areas of protection that enable us to say if the VC is or not sustainable. A possibility to answer this question is to compare obtained values with other references. Numerous studies have focused on environmental impacts of beef production around the world (Haas et al., 2000; Casey and Holden, 2006; Williams et al., 2006; Ogino et al., 2007; de Vries and de Boer, 2010; Veysset et al., 2010). Comparing results from different studies is always difficult due to differences in goal and scope and methods used. For instance, Ogino et al. (2007) applied LCA on beef Japanese production systems but use “one beef calf” as a functional unit while Haas et al. (2000) propose only a “cradle-to-farm gate” assessment. However, they offer a relevant way to position the VC sustainability.

Concerning Human Health damage, the most part of LCA studies present Midpoint indicators such as Global Warming Potential (GWP = Climate change) in kg CO2-eq. Gerber et al. (2013) proposed a global LCA approach to estimate GHG emissions for meat production in different part of the world. They conclude GHG emissions for beef production could range from around 15 to 75 kg eqCO2 per kg equivalent carcass. Considering this range, we can consider GHG emissions from Zimbabwean beef production systems are low. As a consequence and as the global warming is the main contributor to damage on Human Health from Zimbabwean beef VC, we can consider the VC have low impacts on this area of protection.

Concerning impacts on Ecosystem quality, we saw that the main contributor is land use, mainly due to large natural pasture area used by communal production systems. Unsustainability of this land use can be discussed. LCA in Endpoint ReCiPe 2016 method focused on two different types of land use: transformation (land use change) in which transformation refers to changing one kind of land cover to another, and occupation (land use) which refers to the use of a land cover for a certain period. Incorporating both types of land use in an assessment is important for full analysis, but considerable difficulties persist in the interpretation and combination of the two classes (Mattila et al., 2011). As such areas are natural, our assessment refers to occupation. However, unsustainability of this land use can be questioned. Firstly, valorization of these areas does not compete with other uses, as human food production for instance. Moreover, management of the natural pasture areas by communal farmers is extensive with low animal density. Sustainability of such management (overgrazing for instance) have not been assessed but, from interviews and as they represent their only feeding resources, communal areas management by farmers tend to be sustainable. Paradoxically, natural pasture areas management by commercial and commercial / communal farmers through fencing, both for veterinary control (e.g., veterinary cordons) and land appropriation, is more questionable. As demonstrated in South Africa, fences could be unselective and can create substantial physical barriers for many wildlife species (Gadd, 2012). The ecological cost of fencing is not considered in the LCA framework although it could represent a major burden in Zimbabwe.

Finally, contribution of the resource depletion is mainly caused by fossil energy use. Fossil energy use from cradle-to-market reached 5.8MJ per kg eq carcass. In literature, values for cradle-to-farm gate beef studies can range from 5 in Brazilian context (Cederberg et al., 2009) to more than 30MJ.kg

185

in Europe (Williams et al., 2006; Veysset et al., 2010) or still United States (Rotz et al., 2015). We could conclude that Zimbabwean beef VC is sustainable concerning Resources depletion. However, impacts accounting on water depletion is weak for Endpoint ReCiPe method because it is not contextualised. A method built by Pfister et al (2011) or the AWARE method (Boulay et al., 2018) are available for water deprivation. However, considering uncertainty on data both for water use and contextualized water scarcity in Zimbabwe, we decided not to apply it.

Despite the uncertainty inherent to our methods and data, we trust that the orders of magnitude of the impacts evaluated in this study and the key contributors identified are robust.

As a conclusion and regarding the indicators calculated, the impacts of Zimbabwean beef VC seems to be low comparing to a large part of beef VC investigated around the world. However, these low impacts are partly related to extensive and low-input management of communal production systems (Figure 55) for different reasons. Firstly, they present lower impacts on the different areas of protection with the exception of ecosystem quality. Secondly, they represent around half of carcasses produced yearly (51%). Finally, because carcasses from communal farmers are mainly sent in a direct sub-VC with only rural butchers as intermediate actors.

FIGURE 56: EXTENSIVE HERD MANAGEMENT IN COMMUNAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IN ZIMBABWE

Photo credit: Muriel Figuié Nonetheless, we have seen this analysis could be completed at least by investigations dealing with: (i) direct interactions between beef production systems and wildlife; and, (ii) impacts of production systems on water depletion. The characterisation of production systems was simplified in this analysis. These additional investigations should more precisely address the diversity of production systems in the different parts of the country as they could represent diversified stakes according to the area.

186