Presentation on theme: "Food and Climate Change"— Presentation transcript:
1 Food and Climate Change The world on a plateTara GarnettFood Climate Research Network
2 This presentation Climate change: an overview Food & its contribution to climate changing emissions by life cycle & food typeSpecific issues: transport, refrigeration, waste, healthClimate change & its impact on food supply chainsHow might we reduce food chain emissions?What’s going on? Government & industryObservations & conclusionsAbout the Food Climate Research Network
4 The facts Latest (2007) IPCC report: ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal…’Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [over 90% certainty] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrationsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007
5 Climate change… Temperature increase of 0.74ºC in last 100 years 11 of last 12 years have been the warmest on recordWarming of oceansFaster than average warming in ArcticIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007
6 What is more…Under BAU temperatures to rise by about 3°C by 2100 (range: 2 to 4.5°C ).2°C rise = ‘dangerous climate change’We’re already ‘committed’ to 1°C rise even if we stop producing any more GHGs right now.We need to achieve 80% not 60% cuts by 2050UK not meeting our CO2 reduction targetsWill EU meet its 2012 Kyoto target (8% cut)?Reading:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, edited by Joachim Schellnhuber et alia, Cambridge University Press, January 2006
8 Source: Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2004 and inventory report 2006, Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat, European Environment Agency, or see main website:
9 Defining terms GHGs = greenhouse gas emissions CO2 the main GHG but… …others also important especially for foodMethane 213 x greater global warming potential than CO2Nitrous oxide 296 x greater global warming potential than CO2Refrigerant gases thousands of times greater than CO2
13 Overall food-related contribution to GHG emissions EU EIPRO report: 31% all EU consumption related GHGsFCRN UK estimates: around 19% (probably an underestimate) - Defra estimates similarWorld agriculture contribution – % total global emissionsHuge uncertainty / variability between countries / differences in what’s included and what’s notEnvironmental impact of products (EIPRO): Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the total final consumption of the EU25, European Science and Technology Observatory and Institute for Prospective Technological studies, full report, May
14 UK GHG emissions – how does food contribute? FCRN work in progress 2007
15 The GHG ‘hotspots’ vary by food Agriculture Meat & dairy; glasshouse vegManufacture Bread bakingStorage Frozen peas or potatoesTransport Anything airfreighted eg. berriesCooking Baked potato, pasta, tea, coffeePackaging Small bottle of beerWaste Fruit & veg
16 And there are real difficulties drawing meaning from your measurements For example:Relative contribution: Eg. Banana transport emissions greater than strawberries since we eat more of them but flown-in strawberries are more GHG intensive by volume. Policy implications?Specific behaviour: farmer, consumer – huge variations How do you address this?What’s the functional unit? Emissions per KG? vit C? pleasure? What do you want to achieve?System boundaries: Farm machinery? How employee travelled to work? When does food end and everything else begin?The existing infrastructure eg. Refrigeration: If the fridge is on whether the peas are in there or not can we really attribute refrigeration emissions to those peas? And what does it mean for the consumer?
17 Impacts by food type: FCRN work so far Meat and dairy – about 8%Fruit and veg - about 2.5%Alcoholic drinks – about 1.5%This is of the UK’s TOTAL GHG emissionsSimilar to this Dutch study…
18 Klaas Jan Kramer, Henri C Moll, Sanderine Nonhebel, Harry C Wilting, Greenhouse gas emissions related to Dutch food consumption, Energy Policy 27 (1999) , Elsevier PublicationsKlaas Jan Kramer, Henri C Moll, Sanderine Nonhebel, Harry C Wilting, Greenhouse gas emissions related to Dutch food consumption, Energy Policy 27 (1999) , Elsevier PublicationsMeat and dairy products particularly greenhouse gas intensive – not just CO2 but also methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (N20)
19 Food impacts by type: Fruit & vegetables GHG contributions approx 2.5% totalTrends: increasing consumption of GHG intensive produce:Air freightedUnseasonal protectedPre-preparedFragile / spoilable
20 Key impact areas Transport Refrigeration Waste 1.5% f&v air freighted, accounting for 40 – 50% total f&v transport emissionsAir freight growing rapidlyRefrigerationfrom post harvest homeTrade offs AND synergies with transportWasteApprox 25% fruit and veg wasted – most at domestic stageSupply chain demands make waste inevitable
21 Less GHG intensive produce Seasonal and field grown: no heating; fewer ‘tradeoffs’Robust (less need for rapid transport, less prone to waste, less temp critical?)
22 Food impacts by type: Alcoholic drinks Contributes around 1.5% UK totalNot much difference between typesHotspots: hospitality sector, transport, packagingLack of data
23 Relative contribution of stages to beer emissions (draft & packaged)
24 Relative contribution of stages to wine emissions
25 Relative contribution of stages to spirit emissions
26 Trends: More wine: relative importance of transport to grow? More chilled: cold lagers, cider over ice, chilled wine, spirit mixersMore in-home: more single serve packagesHospitality sector??More drinking
27 Scope for reduction? Brewing / distilling: progress being made Packaging: lightweighting (but little recycling from pubs etc.)Hospitality sector: no policy focus here yet (but this is changing – more later)Consumption: adherence to Dept of Health recs would lead to 18% reduction in consumption. BUTRebound effectInternational trade
28 Food impacts by type: Meat & dairy Global – 18% global emissions (FAO 2006)EU – 15% EU emissions or 50% of all food impacts (EIPRO 2006)Dutch study: 50% of all food impactsUK (from FCRN study):6.6% production related GHG emissions (NETCEN & other)8% consumption emissions (Cranfield plus volumes based on MLC & Defra)
29 Projected global trends in meat & dairy demand Poultry takes biggest share of growthBut per capita developing world demand still lower than developed world (IFPRI 2001)
30 But We have to eat – there’ll always be an impact Livestock production yields food and non food benefits – they ‘save’ having to produce them by other meansSome livestock rearing utilises unproductive land & by-productsWould non-animal substitutes be any better for GHG emissions?
31 To understand why the impacts arise and how/whether they can be reduced you need to look at The inputs to the production system and GHG implicationsThe outputs from the system and GHG implications
32 Different systems have different inputs & outputs Dairy cowsSuckler cowsDairy replacement heifer calvescalvesDairy bull calvesSuckler bull calvesSuckler heifer calvesMEATMILKDairy bullsBeef bullsCrossbreed calves male and female
33 Livestock system inputs What are the second order impacts eg. Lost carbon sequestration from land clearance?What is the opportunity cost – could these inputs be used in other ways?Cereals: How much? Alternative uses (food, biofuel)?Oilseeds: Second order impacts? Relationship between cake and oil?Grazing land: Inputs to? Alternative uses? Benefits of?By-products: Alternative uses?Land: What’s the best way of using the land for most output at least GHG cost?Energy: on farm and indirectFeed inputs – embedded in these are fossil fuels from farm machinery, fertilisers etc
34 Livestock system outputs Nutrition: protein, calcium, iron, B12, fat…Leather & woolRendered products: glues, soaps, pet food…Manure: nutrients and soil qualitySoil carbon sequestrationLandscape aesthetics & biodiversity
35 Questions What benefits do we gain from livestock production? Are these benefits accurately accounted for in life cycle analysis?How much do we need these products?(who defines need?)To what extent can we obtain these goods / services by non livestock means and what would the GHG implications be?
36 General conclusions on meat, dairy and nutrition Good source of calcium, iron & Vit B12Not so important for proteinProvides fat in excessLivestock products not essentialBut useful in small quantities esp. for vulnerable groupsDifferent issues for rich in developed world and extremely poor in developing world
37 Non food benefitsLeather: useful byproducts but not ‘needed’ at current levels (but developing world industries)Comes with own environmental downsidesWool: v. small textile playerRendered products: are we making the most efficient use of the carcass?
38 Manure Costs & benefits Avoids need for mineral fertilisers (although harder to optimise input levels)Contributes to soil quality / carbon sequestering properties of soilLeads to methane and nitrous oxide emissions
39 Soil carbon sequestration, biodiversity & aesthetics (grazing land) Pasture land important for carbon sequestration & biodiversityBut 20% land degraded by overgrazing worldwide (73% in dry areas)Hence carbon losses and decline in biodiversity
40 Mitigation: relative importance of different gases - GWP Source: Williams AG (2007) per comm. Based on Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. and Sandars, D.L. (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205.
41 Mitigation options Husbandry (feed, breed etc) Changing management (organic vs non organic, intensive vs extensive)Managing outputs (manure)Changing numbers
42 In the context ofFraming issues: Animal welfare, biodiversity, long term soil quality and soil carbon storage, rural economyManaging trade offs: With other social / environmental concerns & pollution swappingLand use: Need to consider the opportunity cost of using land for one purpose over another
43 GHGS: Foods with major impacts Meat and dairy8% + UK estimate13.5% total EU GHG emissions (half of all food emissions): could we get our protein / iron / calcium / shoes /warm jumpers / glues in other ways?FAO estimates livestock =18% global GHG emissionsCertain kinds of fruit and vegetablesVeg diets not always better‘Unnecessary’ foods and drinks – alcohol, beverages, confectionaryWhose needs? Who defines them? (more later)EU: Environmental impact of products (EIPRO): Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the total final consumption of the EU25, European Commission Technical Report EUR EN , May 2006FAO ref: Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options, FAO, December 2006
44 3. Specific issues: Transport, refrigeration, waste, health
45 Transport: What about food miles? 2.5 – 3.5% of UK GHG emissions (incl imports)Is nearer better? It depends….There are trade-offs to considerEg. agricultural production, manufacturing efficiency, energy mix, cold storage, wasteOn the other hand…relationship between transport distance & refrigeration, & wasteStructural impacts on economy and infrastructure investmentConflicting demands on land eg. biofuels. What should we use our land for?‘Answer’ now might be different to ‘answer’ in 5 – 10 years time
46 What about air freight? The most GHG intensive form of transport Less than 1% all food carried by air but = 11% total food transport CO2 (including car trips)1.5% fruit and veg carried by air but accounts for 40% total f&v transport CO2Kenyan green beans times more GHG intensive than seasonal UK beans
47 Air freight continued…. Absolute impacts small but in relative terms growing – and it subsidises passenger air travelThe greater the volume, the cheaper it is to fly foodFood is the fastest growing air freighted commodityMight climate change increase use of air freight (variability of supply leads to more use of emergency ‘top ups’)?
48 Is air always the worst option? Sometimes other options can be more GHGintensive (eg. hothouse flowers in Feb fromHolland compared with those from Kenya)BUTThis doesn’t meant that air freight is ‘okay’It just means that both have very highimpacts!
49 However…air freight and developing countries Contribution of SSA countries to total non-EU fruit and veg air freighted imports:Kenya 22%S Africa 6%Ghana 6%Zimbabwe 3.6%Of top 20 air freight importers by volume, almost allless developed countries1-1.5 mill people dependent on export horticulturein SSA (up to 120,000 directly employed)Lives depend upon it – some excellent projectsJoined up Govt policy implication?From Plough to Plate by Plane: An investigation into trends and drivers inthe airfreight importation of fresh fruit and vegetables into the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2004, Clive Marriott, Msc dissertation, University of Surrey, 2005Info on employment in SSA: Fair miles"? The concept of "food miles" through a sustainable development lens, International Institute for Environment and Development,
50 Food refrigeration & GHGs Refrigeration life cycle stageCarbon emissions MTContribution to UK GHG (total 179 MTCe)Manufacturing0.280.18%Food retail & catering1.460.97%Domestic1.91.24%UK total3.642.39%Note: These figures are for energy related emissions only and do not include the global warming impacts resulting from the leakage of refrigerants. It is assumed here that these increase total GHG emissions by around 15%. The non-CO2 greenhouse gases account, in the national inventory, for around 15% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Hence we assume here that the contribution of refrigeration to total greenhouse gas emissions is the same as the CO2 contribution of refrigeration to the UK CO2 total Sustainable Development: Achievements and Challenges in the Refrigeration Sector. Bulletin of the International Institute of Refrigeration, no ,Sources:Manufacturing: Estimates based on data provided by Enviros, managers of the UK food sector's Climate Change AgreementsRetail and catering: Market Transformation Programme pers. comm Nov 2005Domestic: Sustainable Products 2006: Policy Analysis and Projections, Market Transformation Programme, July 2006Embedded impacts from imports & emissions from mobile refrigeration not included. IF THEY WERE....
51 Then overall refrigeration GHGs 3-3.5% of UK total Total food related GHGs around 19-20%Food refrigeration = 17-18% all food GHGsSource for UK food GHG contribution: Garnett T. UK food consumption related greenhouse gas emissions unpublished, 2007
52 Reducing impacts: How far will technology get us? Savings between 20-50% possibleNovel technologies eg. trigenerationInstitutional inertia & short term costingPolicies in place / being developedMasses of adviceSources:Robert Heap, Cambridge Refrigeration Technology, comment made at FCRN refrigeration seminar, Manchester, September 2006John Hutchings, Director, Cold Storage and Distribution Federation, personal communication, December 2005Advice: See for example How to improve energy efficiency in refrigerating equipment, International Institute of Refrigeration, November 2003,
53 But we now live in a refrigeration dependent society: Why? Changes in foods & drinks we buyChanges in how we live our livesEconomic changesWeekly shoppingWomenLifestylesHousing design/ temperaturesInfrastructure development stimulates cold food manufacturing which stimulates infrastructure investment – and reinforces behavioural norms
55 Future refrigeration trends? Some projections refrig. emissions set to decline. But:A warming climate? More dependencyNew product innovation?product/technology/behaviour interfaceCan’t look at refrigeration emissions alone:Nexus of transport, packaging, retail and IT infrastructure within which refrigeration technology is situated.
56 In short Refrigeration as marker of unsustainable energy use? Nodal point of energy intensive practices/behavioursPolicies need to tackle not just refrigeration energy use but refrigeration dependency
57 A less refrigeration dependent food chain FoodsLess meat and dairyFewer ‘fragile’ foodsMore seasonal robust produceMore frequent shopping / cooking patternsOptimum fridge size / level of infrastructure?Food safety / waste - issues more nuanced than at firstappears.
58 Waste: why is it a problem for food GHGs? Decomposing food generates methane (small problem)Wasted food represents a waste of all the emissions generated during the course of growing, processing, storing, transporting, retailing and cooking the food. (BIG PROBLEM)Around1/3 food we eat is thrown away, most of it edible.
59 The most wasted foodsTop 5 waste categories: fruit and veg, meat and fish, bakery, dairy, rice and pastaHigh waste foods = mostly also GHG intensiveMost waste occurs at household stage – once food has ‘embedded’ upstream GHG emissionsBUT:If we waste less will we buy less? Will farmers grow less? Will supermarkets sell less food & but more GHG intensive? Or energy using non food products? Will we export more / import less? What are the policy implications? What action is needed?
60 What about organic? Many benefits to organic: Long term soil qualityBiodiversityBut it’s not always less GHG intensiveEg. PoultryALTHOUGH it sometimes is!So how do you act consistently?
61 Is healthy food less GHG intensive? It depends…
63 Two balanced meals… A ninefold GHG difference Source: Carlsson-Kanyama A (1998) Climate change and dietary choices - how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy, vol 23, no.3/4, ppProduction of meal on the left is nine times less GHG intensive than the one on the rightCarlsson-Kanyama A (1998) Climate change and dietary choices - how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy, vol 23, no.3/4, pp
65 Impacts on agriculture Huge uncertainty... Impacts depend onInterplay between:Gradual temperature increaseCO2 effectWildcards (extreme drought, flooding)WaterEconomics, demographics, infrastructureNormally European vegetation stores carbon. But when plant growth is stunted due to drought and heat the opposite effect can occur.But during the 2003 heatwave the carbon dioxide released was equivalent to the amount of carbon stored over the previous four years of normal growth,Source: Nature 437, (22 September 2005)Hadley Centre says half the temperature increase in the 2003 heatwave can be attributed to climate change -http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide29.pdf such events likely to become more frequent – could be normal by 2040s and cool by 2060sFAO document on impacts of climate change on food security: 31st Session of the Committee on World Food Security, Special Event on Impact of Climate Change, Pests and Diseases on Food Security and Poverty Reduction, Background Document, FAO23-26 May 2005
66 Impacts continued...May be positive in N. Countries up to then negativePoor countries – negative and then more negativeChanges in crop suitabilityCrop and livestock diseasesWaterPoor will suffer most
67 The picture by 2050Source: IPCC 2004 Wkg Gp II Ch5
68 Climate change – knock on effects If current sources no longer viable – need to source from elsewhere (further?)Increasing reliance on emergency top ups (by air)?Weather related spoilage / waste
69 Major commodity crops - impacts Wheat: North – South divideRice: water shortagesCocoa: W. Africa – threat from droughtCoffee: more vulnerableWine grapes: water? Quality?Cane sugar: waterIncreased developing world dependence on imports from developed world
70 Post harvest impacts Food sourcing, processing and distribution Disruptions to transport & stationary infrastructureUnpredictability can lead to crop spoilage & wasteChanges in sourcing decisions?More imports to developing worldConsumptionChanges in consumer demand?Consequences for food industry & household energy use?Food safety problems?
71 The CC contextPhysical effects of CC need to be seen in social, economic, political, demographic and infrastructural context – feedback interactionsClimate change exacerbates existing vulnerabilities of poor in developing worldThe more rapid the climate change the harder it will be to adaptPoor farmers less likely to be able to adapt – infrastructural, political, economic barriersSource: IPCC AR4 working group II ch5
72 What might the impacts be for food supply? Current sources no longer viable?More variability of supply?Challenges for transport / distribution infrastructureThe ‘right’ sourcing answer from a GHG perspective depends on which part of the supply chain cleans up its act / adapts firstImpact of legislation may be more important in the short term
74 How far will technology get us? Agriculture: plant breeding; better nutrient use; alternative fuel sources for greenhousesManufacturing: CHP / trigeneration / polygeneration / life cycle costingRefrigeration: 20-50% efficiency savings possible; novel technologies including non HFC refrigeration, trigeneration (increases efficiency from 38% to 76%).Packaging: lightweighting, alternative materials, ambient storage packagingHorticulture: existing technologies can deliver 8% reductions in energy use for tomatoes: Annual report and accounts , Horticultural Development Council, March 2005
75 More technological options Transport: modal shift, efficient supply chains; cleaner fuels (in future years)Retailing: massive scope for improvements in lighting and refrigeration; renewablesDomestic: energy efficient appliances, visible energy meteringLots of little impacts/solutions rather than one big oneBest storage facilities 78% more efficient than worstDriver training can improve fuel efficiency by 10-15% (Transport and Logistics Research Unit, Reducing the Environmental Impact of Road Transport Operations: a review of inventions that can be applied by fleet operators, presented at the CANTIQUE Workshop, Rome, 24th, 25th January 2000, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, 2000
76 But Will this get us to an 80% cut by 2050? Technological improvements don’t address the root problems of the way we consumeAnd technology shapes behaviour, fostering new (energy dependent) normsTwo examples…
77 Eg.1: Ready meal vs home cooking Is the energy efficient ready meal the answer?No trimmings or scraps: less wasteProduction stage scraps can be used for animal feedNo packaging for individual ingredientsMore efficient industrial ovensOnly transport what is eaten: less transportRecent LCA showed little difference between home and ready-mealBut: complex multi-ingredient, elaborately prepared foodreliant on long supply chains and refrigeration becomes thenorm – triggering further innovations…problem exacerbated?Sonesson U, Mattsson B, Nybrant T and Ohlsson T Industrial Processing versus Home Cooking: An Environmental Comparison between Three Ways to Prepare a Meal. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, vol. xxxiv number 4-5 June 2005
78 Eg. 2: Food waste: how to reduce? Wasted food = wasted CO2 + CH4One third food bought is not eatenThe technology approach? Improve packaging, portion size (no leftovers), extend food life span to match our lifestyles? Keep food properly refrigerated. Shrink-wrapped cucumber last longer than unpackaged cucumberThe behaviour approach? Plan your meals, shop little and often, eat food soon after you’ve bought it, use your leftovers, compost scraps, shared living? Eat that cucumber sooner rather than later!Understanding Food Waste: Key findings of our recent research on the nature, scale and causes of household food waste, Waste and Resources Action Programme, March 2007
79 What might a less GHG intensive way of eating look like? Changing the balance of what we eatLess meat & dairy - lower down on food chainSeasonal field grown foods (less storage, heating & transport)UK seasonal when possibleElsewhere seasonal when notNot eating certain foodsAvoiding hothoused/air freighted produce (but developing world?)Reducing dependence on cold chainRobust foods (including less processed)Frequent non car based shopping / frequent turnover of food
80 Less GHG intensive eating But wasting lessEat what we buy, soon after we’ve bought itAccepting variability of quality and supplyEfficient cookingCook for more people and for several daysLess use of ovenRedefining qualityAccepting different notions of qualityAccepting more variability
81 How?Life is complicated andfood is a complex part of life
82 Food and its meanings Food Nurture Entertainment Neurosis Pleasure GuiltNeedRitualFoodHabitSatisfactionSocial glueLoveNurture and neurosisLove and powerTime pass and religious significanceHabit and entertainmentStatusPowerBriberyComfortReligious significanceTime-pass
83 Influenced by wider forces Price / affordabilityAvailabilityTime – work / ‘stressed leisure’ syndromeCulture, social & family expectations, norms, aspirationsKnowledge, information, fashions & beliefs (education, media, marketing)Demographic changes: ageing population, single person society, wealthTechnological changesSeasonTastesHabits
84 What might this mean for the food industry? Consistency, choice, ubiquity, availability,variety…VersusLess choice? More variability of quality? Nonavailability? A move away from cheap meat?From chilled foods….
85 You cannot wait for consumers to change their behaviour They don’t know enoughThey don’t care enoughBehaviour ‘lock-in’They won’t unless they have to... Govt and industry must take the lead – change the context of consumption
87 The global context Rising population – 9 billion by 2050 Increasing food / oil pricesDash for biofuelsNutrition transitionLand pressures(Climate change legislation...)
88 A few framing policies/initiatives Kyoto ProtocolBali 2007 agreement on deforestationEU Emissions Trading SchemeEuropean Commission Energy Policy20% GHG cut by 2020 (should be 30%+)Biofuels 10% transport fuels by 2020 (criticisms)Biofuels support – EU, US
89 The UK context: the new Climate Change Bill New UK Climate Change Bill – 60% reduction by 2050 Targeted 5 yearly ‘budgets’ set at least 15 years ahead26-32% cut by 2020This is good but we need 80-90% cuts to keep emissions below 450ppmTarget currently being reconsidered
90 Food/climate relevant legislation and initiatives (UK) Climate Change AgreementsCarbon Reduction Commitment (consultation)Food Industry Sustainability Strategy and ‘champions groups’ recommendationsMarket Transformation Programme (radical improvements in devt and uptake of energy efficient technology)Cabon Trust advice and supportVarious Defra research programmesProduct ‘road maps’ on reducing impacts (eg. dairy productsDeveloping consistent GHG labelling methodology (with business and British Standards)Thinking about personal carbon allowances (could food be incorporated into this?)
91 UK policy Is this enough? Little direct focus on agriculture “Business running ahead of Government”Where is a coherent vision backed up with a plan?
92 Government: Some policy tools What measures have worked for food & how can we strengthen them?ConsumersRegulationLegislationCaps, quotas, thresholds, bansEconomic and fiscalVoluntary agreementsEducation, marketing & promotionSocial pressurePolicyinstrumentsFood industryRegulation: minimum energy efficiency standardsLegislation: Caps, quotas - fishEconomic and fiscal: Fuel tax, Emissions Trading Scheme, Climate Change levyVoluntary: Food Industry Sustainability Strategy, work by retailersEducation: Carbon Trust work, Sust Devt document, the media eg. all the local food stuff in the press.Social pressure – not a lotWhat new measures should we be considering?Technologicalchange& uptake
94 Some food industry initiatives - agriculture Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (Nestle, Unilever, Danone, Kraft etc.)EUREPGAPRoundtables on sustainable soy / palm oilNot specifically climate focused
95 Food industry initiatives: retailers M & S:£200 million ‘Plan A’All operations carbon neutral by 201225% energy cut; power stores with green electricityLabel and reduce air freighted produceTesco:50% energy cut in stores and DCs by 2020£100 million renewables fundHalve distribution emissions / case in 5 yrsMigros (Switzerland) – to introduce carbon labellingFrench and Australian announcements
96 Food industry initiatives: manufacturers Tate & Lyle: biomass boiler to replace 70% fossil energyMcCain's: up to 70% electricity needs from renewables including wind turbines and CHP plant running on biogasCadbury’s: 50% absolute cut in carbon emissions by 2020Many others starting to carbon footprint their operationsBut focus of food industry is on efficiency rather than shifts in consumption.
97 Policy & business limitations Reluctant to question core business principles of Choice, Variety, Ubiquity, Repeatability, Convenience.And therefore scope for GHG reduction limited largely to technological changeAnd technological change alone creates further behavioural changesNeed not just to do things more efficiently but……Sell / don’t sell different stuff - ‘choice editing’
99 Food’s impacts Climate change is happening Food contributes to a significant proportion of global GHG emissionsAll stages in the supply chain contribute to emissionsAgriculture most significant stage / meat and dairy most GHG intensive foodGlobal food demand is moving in more GHG intensive directions
100 Climate change will affect global food supply - poor regions will suffer most Technology unlikely to get us to an 80% cutConsumption shifts needed tooPolicy and govt beginning to tackle problem but only from ‘efficiency’ perspective
101 Some major concerns 9 billion people on planet in 2050 Increase in numbers in absolute poverty AND growing wealth in many parts of developing worldThe poor will suffer most from climate changeAn 80%+ cut in developed world GHGs neededTackle problems in isolation or as a whole - atomised vs synthetic approach?
102 Land – the big challenge In the context of 9 billion on planet by 2050What is the best use of global land so that:We are all fed adequately ...At minimum GHG cost?Stored carbon is not released?Biodiversity is protected?Other ethical non-negotiables upheld??Meeting Needs rather than demand - only feasible approach
103 In other words.... Land to feed animals or to feed humans? Land for feed production or for carbon sequestration?Land for animal rearing or for biomass production?We need to collaborate globally and think strategically about how to make best use of land. But how?
104 Some research challenges We need to:Gain ‘good enough’ understanding of where the problem lies by particular food typeWork out how far technology can get usImprove understanding on what sorts of consumption patterns (in the context of these technology changes) can help achieve reductionsUnderstand more clearly how technological innovation influences behaviour and vice versaFrame the climate change debate in the context of other social, environmental and economic concernsLCA can inform policy but vagaries of consumer and business behaviour ALSO need to inform LCA
106 The FCRN: some contextFunded by UK research council & based at Surrey University (www.surrey.ac.uk)
107 The FCRN Funded by UK research council www.epsrc.ac.uk & based at Surrey University (www.surrey.ac.uk)Focuses on:Researching food chain contribution to GHG emissions and options for emissions reductionSharing and communicating information on food & climate change with member network
108 Research activities What are the GHG impacts of food? What do we know about ways of reducing emissions, both technological & behavioural?What don’t we know?What are the policy implications?What are the future research priorities?
109 FCRN outputs Four comprehensive studies so far: Fruit & vegetablesAlcoholic drinksFood refrigerationMeat & dairySee here for publications
110 Communication & networking Communicates information & fostersknowledge-sharing to 760+ membersAcross disciplinesAcross sectors (eg. Govt, business, NGOs, academic)How?Mailing / newslist on food/climate issuesRuns seminarsMeetings & presentationsWebsite
111 Thank you and please join Tara GarnettFood Climate Research NetworkFor further reading suggestions see resources pages of the FCRN
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.