Reducing the carbon footprint of coffee production through improved fertilizer management. Katharina Plassmann

Transcription

1 Reducing the carbon footprint of coffee production through improved fertilizer management Katharina Plassmann

2 Introduction

3 Global climate change: the size of the challenge 3

4 Agriculture, forestry and other land use contributed 21% of global greenhouse gas emissions in % 10% agriculture forestry and other land use 79% energy, transport, buildings, industry Tubiello et al. (2015) Global Change Biology, doi: /gbc

5 Product carbon footprinting product carbon footprinting is an important tool for estimating and reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to products and supply chains a product carbon footprint is the sum of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) released during the life cycle of a good or service expressed per unit of product GHGs included: CO 2, N 2 O, CH 4, other GHGs expressed as CO 2 equivalents per unit of product: carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) = 1 kg CO 2 e nitrous oxide (N 2 O): 1 kg = 298 kg CO 2 e methane (CH 4 ): 1 kg = 25 kg CO 2 e usually based on calculations, not actual measurements of GHG emissions 5

6 Product carbon footprinting applies life cycle thinking Life cycle thinking looks at entire supply chains, i.e. from raw material extraction, production, transport, storage, distribution, consumer use and disposal (or parts thereof). This allows a better understanding of what can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions instead of unintentionally shifting burdens from one life cycle stage to another. The life cycle of mineral fertilizers includes their production, transportation and on-farm use. Raw materials & energy Production Transport Farming Harvest Transportation, storage, processing, consumption, waste disposal 6

7 Case study: Reduction of coffee carbon footprints through improved fertilization management in Vietnam

8 Case study: description Vietnam Robusta coffee Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) project Product carbon footprint calculations for demo plots on 21 farms ( ) Comparison of two contrasted fertilization strategies: 1) a PPP crop nutrition concept ( PPP program ) based on Yara recommendations: more balanced, nitrate based nutrition including micro-nutrients 2) common fertilization practice in the region ( baseline ): often over-fertilization, AS and urea based (acidifying effect), no application of micronutrients 350 1, , kg/ha kg/ha 0,8 0,6 0,4 50 0,2 0 N P2O5 K2O S MgO CaO 0 B Mn Zn baseline PPP program baseline PPP program 8

9 Case study: description The methodology and the inclusion or exclusion of processes followed the guidelines that were developed by the international coffee industry. Processes included in the product carbon footprint calculation: greenhouse gas emissions embodied in farm inputs emissions arising on farm the transport of the green beans to the next supply chain partner 9

10 Case study: aims of the analysis 1. Climate mitigation: to quantify the mitigation potential of changing from the baseline to a balanced plant nutrition program defined by Yara to identify greenhouse gas emissions hotspots 2. Yield impacts: to quantity potential yield increases 3. Farmer incomes: to assess the impact of changing the fertilization program on farmer incomes 10

11 1. Climate mitigation

12 On average, the PPP fertilization program reduced the PCF by 16% as compared to the baseline kg CO 2 e/t of green beans average baseline average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production 12

13 On average, the PPP fertilization program reduced the PCF by 16% as compared to the baseline kg CO 2 e/t of green beans mineral fertiliser: transport 0 average baseline average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production 13

14 On average, the PPP fertilization program reduced the PCF by 16% as compared to the baseline kg CO 2 e/t of green beans mineral fertiliser: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: transport 0 average baseline average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production Average kg mineral N/ha:

15 On average, the PPP fertilization program reduced the PCF by 16% as compared to the baseline kg CO 2 e/t of green beans mineral fertiliser: indirect N2O mineral fertiliser: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: transport 0 average baseline average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production 15

16 On average, the PPP fertilization program reduced the PCF by 16% as compared to the baseline kg CO 2 e/t of green beans compost: indirect N2O compost: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: indirect N2O mineral fertiliser: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: transport 0 average baseline average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production 16

17 On average, the PPP fertilization program reduced the PCF by 16% as compared to the baseline kg CO 2 e/t of green beans urea: soil CO2 compost: indirect N2O compost: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: indirect N2O mineral fertiliser: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: transport 0 average baseline average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production 17

18 On average, the PPP fertilization program reduced the PCF by 16% as compared to the baseline kg CO 2 e/t of green beans lime: soil CO2 urea: soil CO2 compost: indirect N2O compost: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: indirect N2O mineral fertiliser: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: transport 0 average baseline average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production 18

19 On average, the PPP fertilization program reduced the PCF by 16% as compared to the baseline kg CO 2 e/t of green beans other inputs: production and transport lime: soil CO2 urea: soil CO2 compost: indirect N2O compost: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: indirect N2O mineral fertiliser: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: transport 0 average baseline average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production 19

20 On average, the PPP fertilization program reduced the PCF by 16% as compared to the baseline kg CO 2 e/t of green beans energy use other inputs: production and transport lime: soil CO2 urea: soil CO2 compost: indirect N2O compost: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: indirect N2O mineral fertiliser: direct N2O mineral fertiliser: transport 0 average baseline average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production 20

21 Improvements in nitric acid production (relevant for all nitrate containing fertilizers) Nitric acid plant Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) abatement catalyst The technology is based on a unique high temperature catalyst process and pellets of cobalt and cerium oxide. The pellets have an expected minimum lifetime of three years and no adverse effect on the production process. Nitrous oxide is split into nitrogen and oxygen. 21

22 Carbon footprint of granulated AN in different world regions (plant gate) 4 3 kg CO 2 e/kg AN European Union Russia US North Africa China coal China gas Based on the best third party data available. All calculated by Fertilizers Europe (FE) for 2011 using: a) European Union: real and detailed data from FE member companies; and b) other world regions: expert estimates from Integer Research for FE 22

23 Carbon footprint of NPK ( ) in different world regions (plant gate) 2 kg CO 2 e/kg NPK 1 0 European Union Russia US North Africa/Middle East China coal China gas Based on the best third party data available. All calculated by Fertilizers Europe (FE) for 2011 using: a) European Union: real and detailed data from FE member companies; and b) other world regions: expert estimates from Integer Research for FE 23

24 Case study on winter wheat production in Germany kg CO 2 e/t CO2 (lime) N2O (crop residues) indirect N2O (min. fertiliser) direct N2O (min. fertiliser) energy use (field operations) transport of inputs to the farm production of pesticides 100 production of seeds 50 0 CAN (EU) CAN (Russia) production of mineral fertilisers 24

25 New tool and reference values for fertilizer production published by Fertilizers Europe (2014) Fertilizers Europe has developed an industry tool for the calculation of carbon footprints of mineral fertilizers. This tool contains reference values for fertilizer production in different world regions based on 2011 emission and energy data. The new reference values are included in the Cool Farm Tool, World Food LCA Database and GaBi LCA software. 25

26 Product carbon footprints of Yara fertilizers Product carbon footprints for all Yara products and sites are currently under calculation. The calculation is based on the carbon footprinting tool of Fertilizers Europe. Calculations and results will be verified by DNV. 26

27 GHG emissions and N-form research in maize and coffee (cooperation with Embrapa) and sugarcane (cooperation with IAC Campinas) 27

28 2. Changes in yield levels

29 On average, yields were 11% higher in the PPP fertilization program farm 24 farm 4 farm 2 farm 23 farm 11 farm 1 farm 37 farm 7 farm 26 farm 8 average farm 10 farm 9 farm 15 farm 12 farm 5 farm 18 farm 16 farm 14 farm 6 farm 3 farm Percentage change (PPP program vs. baseline) 29

30 3. Impacts on farmer profitability

31 Farmer profitability: on average, farmer incomes increased by 14% in the PPP program Summary of 71 demos in 4 provinces in Vietnam ( ) Baseline PPP program Difference Yield (t/ha) % Cost of inputs (USD/ha) 1,207 1,315 +9% Profit (USD/ha) 5,813 6, % 31

32 Summary and conclusions

33 Summary and conclusions Improved plant nutrition resulted in several co-benefits: a reduced product carbon footprint increased yields improved farmer incomes Fertilization represented the largest emissions source by far (72% and 75% of all emissions for PPP and baseline plots, respectively). Further work is ongoing on such case studies to further reduce the environmental impacts of coffee production ( 33

34 Thank you! 34