Life Cycle and GHG Analyses

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Life Cycle and GHG Analyses"


1 Life Cycle and GHG Analyses Delivering More Sustainable Agriculture Through Growth Insert then choose Picture select your picture. Right click your picture and Send to back. Simon Aumônier ERM April 2013 The world s leading sustainability consultancy The world s leading sustainability consultancy

2 Feeding the world According to the United Nations, by 2050: the world s population is expected to reach 8.9 billion 1 food production must increase by 70% to meet this growing demand 2 and adapt to climate change itself In 2005, agriculture accounted for 10%- 12% of total global anthropogenic GHG emissions 3 1 United Nations (2004), Department of Economic and Social Affairs/ Population Division, World Population to United Nation Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 3 Smith P, et al (2007) Agriculture. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

3 without increasing GHG emissions Food prices are rising as demand for food grows Land available for food production is limited Need to increase production whilst maintaining costs and land use Resolving the complex challenge of: Raising yields; but Limiting the greenhouse gas emissions associated with production; whilst Avoiding land use change Whilst also meeting society s demand for sustainability: Greater efficiency in the consumption of resources and the environment s ability to assimilate the impacts of our economy, whilst delivering equitable growth and social progress

4 Life cycle tools Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product or service (ISO 14040, 2006) A product carbon footprint is a streamlined version of an LCA: focuses on greenhouse gases only reported as a single figure, carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 eq) One of a suite of tools to help guide more sustainable agriculture Provides insights into hotspots and opportunities to reduce impacts INPUTS eg energy, water raw materials eg seeds, fertilisers, crop protection growing of crop harvesting Production food products/ biofuels Use & Disposal EMISSIONS eg N 2 O from soil, CH 4 from manure cradle to gate cradle to grave

5 Carbon dioxide (fossil) Methane (fossil) Methane (biogenic) Water depletion Energy use (nonrenewable) Energy use (renewable) What do we learn? What is the footprint? Where are the opportunities for reduction Where savings are made most costeffectively? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% End of life Retail and use 68 % 22 % % % Processing & packaging Raw materials Converting Filling RDC / Retail 2ndary & transit pkg Transport End-of-life 2ndary & transit pkg End-of-life primary pkg Production & transport of raw materials

6 Percentage difference kg CO 2 eq. per functional unit What if scenarios to inform research and policy Carbon footprint of pork production is driven by pig farming and by the contribution of feed (c.78% for UK farming 2010) Total footprint is 4.8 kg CO 2 e/kg dry weight. Feed is 3.7 kg CO 2 e/kg. What if all farmers were able to achieve the same conversion rate performance as the top third? Reductions range from 1.3% for acidification to 3.2% for climate change % 103.0% 102.0% 101.0% 100.0% 99.0% 98.0% Feed Pig housing Energy use Slurry/manure application to land Climate change Eutrophication Acidification Abiotic resource depletion BPEX, indoor, slatted housing, non-organic Storage in home and consumption, Retail storage, 20% 0.2% Transport to home, 1% Chilled distribution, 1% Packaging, 2% Abattoir and meat processing, 4% Transport to abattoir, 0.2% Waste mgmt, 0.3% Pig farming, 72% Top third feed conversion, indoor, slatted housing, non-organic

7 Durum - North Italy Durum - Mid Italy Durum - South Italy Durum - France Durum - SW USA Durum - North USA Durum - Canada Durum - Mexico Durum - Turkey Durum - Spain Durum - Greece Durum - Australia Soft - France Soft - Italy/Spain Soft - USA/Canada Soft - Russia Soft - Sweden kg CO 2 e per tonne of wheat Carbon footprint of wheat The key factors that influence the magnitude of GHG emissions per tonne of maize are yield and production of and N 2 O emissions associated with the application of fertilisers. Higher yields are achieved through nutrient application, ie a balance to be created between yield and GHG emissions Although higher yields are generally a result of greater fertiliser use, the GHG impact is distributed over a greater quantity of maize. 0 Production and use of fertilisers is 58% to 80% of the total carbon footprints. Fertiliser production Fertiliser application Crop protection Energy and fuels Other inputs Crop protection (pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides) does not contribute significantly. The impact from crop protection is split equally between herbicides and pesticides.

8 Wheat rust invest and insure 46% 26% 21% 6% 1% Crop protection products Fertiliser production Fertiliser application Energy and fuels Other inputs Investment in fertilisers essential for high yields Insure against the loss of the investment with crop protection Wheat rust susceptible varieties have a yield 20-25% higher than rust-resistant varieties, whilst fungicides increase yields of these varieties by 13% 1. At an average 600 kg CO 2 e/te of wheat 13% reduces footprint to <540 kg CO 2 e/te 20% reduces footprint to c.500 kg CO 2 e/te 1 Gianessi, L. and Williams, A. International Pesticides Benefits Case Study No. 31, October 2011

9 Driving improvement through benchmarking

10 Water footprint of beet AGRICULTURE Responding to the 70% of global water abstraction due to agriculture Benchmarking different growing areas and production sites globally Identifying anomalies and improvement opportunities Provision of data to customers to compile the carbon footprint of products from cradle to grave BLUE Volume of water abstracted from surface and ground waters used primarily for irrigation. Sugar beet is typically grown in greenhouses for the first month after sowing. Therefore all water utilised during this period is blue water. GREEN Volume of rainwater utilised by the sugar beet and lost as evapotranspiration during growing. GREY Volume of freshwater required to dilute contaminants in run-off water to agreed quality standards, driven by leaching of fertilisers. There are uncertainties regarding the amount of leaching and water quality standards for this geography. Opportunity for water and cost savings from reducing fertiliser use or improving best practice. xxxx l/kg xxx l/kg xxx l/kg

11 Monitoring progress towards meeting global needs Striking the right balance - between increasing yield and sustainability impacts Understanding how to achieve this: via the impacts per tonne of crop or product, and its variability Monitoring progress how key factors interlink in achieving improved yields At a level that provides the best insight model farms / pilots? national level? regional level? all of the above crop protection Improve through strategy, policy and education nutrients temperature irrigation IMPROVED YIELD harvesting techniques farming practices seeds farm machinery

12 About ERM ERM is a leading global provider of environmental, health, safety, risk and social consulting services in influential assignments. For over 40 years we have been working with clients around the world and in diverse industry sectors to help them to understand and manage their impacts. Over 4,000 employees in 40 countries across the globe. Over the past five years we have worked for approximately 60% of the Global Fortune 500. Contact details: Simon Aumônier Principal Partner ERM Oxford