Monitoring adoption of climate technologies in the agrifood sector

Transcription

1 Monitoring adoption of climate technologies in the agrifood sector Investment opportunities for GHG emissions reduction in Morocco GBEP Bioenergy Week Budapest 22 June 2016

2 FAO/EBRD collaboration on promoting green food value chains Promote investment in more efficient use of water, biomass, land, energy in EBRD countries of operation Key assignments: Developing/testing methodology for assessing irrigation investment needs (Egypt) Supporting Public/Private Capacity in Bioenergy/Agriculture Investments (Turkey, Egypt, Ukraine) Water along the food chain study (Turkey, Jordan, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan) Monitoring adoption of key sustainable climate technologies in the agri-food sector (Global/Morocco)

3 4 step methodology 1 2 Target agri-food activities that emit most GHGs Ascertain the maturity of technologies/practices and their costs and potentials Identify the most relevant GHG emission sources in the agri-food chain and ascertain trends Put the stage of technology development into context Produce marginal abatment cost curves Assess technical and market aspects 3 Identify any sustainability issues Consider any trade-offs such as within the water/energy/food nexus and adaptation benefits 4 Identify key factors hindering market uptake Assess market penetration vis-àvis policies. Confirm most suitable technologies/practices. Identify drivers to support adoption of technologies/practices Identify technologies/ practices with significant potential

4 Key issues to consider New technologies can be added/removed From Morocco to Ireland - with the same analytical principles can be: o a quick assessment o in-depth study Mitigation vs Adaptation? Land use?

5 Step 1 Sources of GHG emissions

6 Step 1 GHG Emitting Activities Analysis 1 of 3 - Agrifood Emissions (including energy) FAOSTAT + UNSD Year 2012 Total: 23.4 MtCO 2 eq FAOSTAT + UNSD + NATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY + 3 EME COMMUNICATION NATIONALE + IEA FOR ELECTRICITY DATA + OUR ESTIMATIONS FROM THE NATIONAL ACCOUNTS ON GHG EMISSIONS FROM THE FOOD INDUSTRY Livestock emissions important(as in other countries in the Maghreb), particularly those related to manure management. GHG emissions from energy consumption and crop residues are also important Countries of the region (Tunisia, Algeria, Libya)

7 Step 1 GHG Emitting Activities Analysis 2 of 3 Recent Trends The emissions sources that have increased the most in the last several years are: Energy consumption in the food industry; Crop residues, manure management and manure applied to soils; Synthetic fertilizers manufacturing.

8 Step 1 GHG Emitting Activities Analysis 3 of 3 Emissions Intensity Based on FAOSTAT, 2015 in accordance with the 2006 IPCC guidelines

9 Step 1 GHG Emitting Activities Results MANURE MANAGEMENT MANURE LEFT ON PASTURE ENERGY IN AGRICULTURE ENERGY IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY ENTERIC FERMENTATION SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS 18% of the total with an increasing trend (+150% since 2000). The intensity of GHG emissions from bovine animals is high Only 24% with an upward trend (+18%). It contributes in an important manner to the high intensity of GHG emissions from bovine animals Important part of emissions, similar to other countries in the region, with upward trend until recently, followed by a slight decline Strong upward trend Important part of emissions (25%) as in other countries in the region. Emissions have increased slightly (+10%). Intensity of GHG emissions from bovine animals is high The portion of emissions from the application of synthetic fertilizers similar to other countries in the region (5%) and is declining (-14%). However, fertilizer use is on the rise

10 Selected technologies The methodology could consider other technologies based on the opportunities available

11 Step 2 Techno-Economic Evaluation

12 Step 2 Techno-Economic Evaluation Series of Indicators evaluated through a simple notation system (1 to 3 stars) based on quantitative or qualitative criteria: Performance relative to best international practices Maturity of technical support services Potential to reduce annual GHG emissions Adoption rate of the actual technology Trends in gap between current technology uptake and technical potential Financial attractiveness Mitigation cost Data availability

13 Step 2 Techno-Economic Evaluation Examples Criteria Current technology adoption rate * ** *** Technology market penetration or adoption of the practice is high, leaving little space for improvement. The market for the technology or adoption of the practice is mature but there is still space for marginal improvements and small increases (possibly with reduced risk and limited profit). The technology is in a growing phase but with market share still much reduced. Few innovators have adopted the practice. Financial attractiveness firr<12%, or firr 12%-20%, or firr >20%, or Pay-back time > 8 years Pay-back time 3-8 years Pay-back time 0-3 years Mitigation cost Positive mitigation cost Between USD 0 and -20 /tco 2 - eq avoided Data availability Indicators based on ad-hoc More disaggregated indicators: surveys or research: data is data is sourced from a number collected in the field by of other sources, often of inspection of installations, specialized nature, for example, undertaking surveys of from organizations that certify equipment suppliers, analysing boilers or associations that financial investments, etc. import tractors. < -20 /tco 2 -eq avoided High-level indicators: data is normally sourced from statistical offices or other official national or international data sources and not always easily disaggregated to the required level of detail.

14 Step 2 - Techno-Economic Evaluation Conservation Agriculture Technical Evaluation Market Evaluation Performance compared with international best practice Maturity of technical support services Potential to reduce annual GHG emissions ** ** *** Not applied in all dimensions therefore a part of its potential to reduce GHG emissions has not been realised Support services for this technology are still limited Potentiel of 3M ha: 80 kgco2eq /ha from fuel savings +550 kgco2eq /ha sequestration Very weak adoption: >1% of the most conservative scenario for technical potential Financial IRR can be high with subsidies in place, also highly dependent on the number of seeders per hectare Mitigation cost vary between -140 et +45 USD / tco2eq Good availability of data in these zones but little information on costs of equipment and performance Current technology adoption rate Trends in gap between current technology uptake and technical potential Financial attractiveness Mitigation cost Economic Evaluation *** ** *** ** Data Availability **

15 Step 2 Techno-Economic Evaluation Results Technologies Performance compared with international best practice Technical Evaluation Market Evaluation Economic Evaluation Evaluation technique Evaluation du marché Evaluation économique Maturity of technical support services Potential to reduce annual GHG emissions Current technology adoption rate Trends in gap between uptake potential Financial attractiveness Mitigation cost Disponibilité des données Data availability Biogas from manure and agri- ** ** *** *** *** *** ** ** *** ** * *** *** *** *** * ** ** * ** ** *** *** * pumping *** ** ** *** *** *** *** * *** ** ** *** *** ** * * *** ** ** *** *** * * * improved diets ** ** * ** ** *** *** ** ** ** * ** ** ** *** * *** ** * ** *** *** *** * residues ** * ** *** *** * * ** *** *** ** *** ** ** ** ** Small dams ** ** * *** ** * * ** Conservation agriculture Efficient field machinery Drip irrigation Solar/wind power for water Grazing management Manure as soil amendment Livestock dairy breeds on Efficient water boilers Efficient cold storage Renewable energy systems 10% 10% 15% 10% 15% 15% 20% 5%

16 Step 2 Techno-Economic Evaluation Results

17 Step 2 Techno-Economic Evaluation Mitigation cost and technical GHG mitigation potential Cumulative technical mitigation potential (MtCO2eq/year)

18 Lower Mitigation cost (USD/tonCO2eq) Step 2 Techno-Economic Evaluation With other financial and technical criteria Higher Techno-economic efficiency rating Size of bubbles proportional to mitigation potential (MtCO2eq/year)

19 Step 3 Evaluating sustainability issues

20 Step 3 - Evaluating sustainability issues Conservation Agriculture Water Energy Food Security Others/Social Positive impact through reduction of surface runoff In the absence of rotations there is potential for groundwater contamination due to increased use of herbicide and fertilizers Positive impact through reduction in aggregate diesel consumption Positive impact on long term soil fertility Reduced yield volatility due to improved results under drought conditions Less time spent in soil work and shorter delay in optimal sowing time More skilled workers may be needed to operate direct seeders and they may not be locally available Importance for adaptation to CC HIGH

21 Step 3 - Evaluating sustainability issues Results (Steps 2+3)

22 Step 4 Barriers and drivers

23 Step 4 Analysis of barriers and drivers Knowledge and information Organization/social Regulations/ Institutions Support services/ structures Financial returns Information asymmetries; Lack of awareness about the technology; Not enough technical expertise to use the technology adequately; Collective action needed for technology to take off Social norms that can hinder adoption Focuses on private/nongovernmental issues Laws, regulations and other that may prevent adoption Technology specifications not well defined Focuses on government/ public domain Existence of research institutes Efficiency and coverage of supplier networks Efficiency and coverage of maintenance companies Are low returns a barrier and in which cases? IRR, payback as per step 2

24 Step 4 Analysis of Barriers Conservation Agriculture Knowledge and information Lack of farmer knowledge about the technology is a major issue in Morocco Also among early adopters appropriate knowledge on technology use is a problem and can influence initial results and sustainability Organization/so cial Direct seeder rental markets or alternatively farmers organized to share equipment would help adoption Organization and social practices linked to livestock production do not favour maintaining crop cover BARRIERS Regulations/ Support Institutions services/ structures N/R Repair shops exist for conventional equipment and can be adapted but still not able to service direct seeders adequately Direct seeders imported from abroad are heavy and not adapted to most local tractors Financial returns Financially attractive Cash flow profile in first years can be problematic depending on farmer knowledge Rotations may not be incorporated by farmers due to price signals and value chain development constraints Access /cost of capital Upfront investment cost is high Access to credit for poorer farmers can be problematic Risks Possible increase in the use of herbicides in the short term can potentially have a negative impact on water quality

25 Results SMALL DAMS MODERATELY PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES BIOGAS FROM MANURE AND AGRI-RESIDUES LIVESTOCK DAIRY BREEDS ON IMPROVED DIETS GRAZING MANAGEMENT SECOND-BEST TECHNOLOGIES MANURE AS SOIL AMENDMENT EFFICIENT WATER BOILERS DRIP IRRIGATION SOLAR/WIND POWERED WATER PUMPING BEST-BET TECHNOLOGIES EFFICIENT COLD STORAGE RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS EFFICIENT FIELD MACHINERY CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE Low-hanging fruits

26 Next Steps June 2016 Final draft of the application of the methodology to Morocco July 2016 Revise the methodology based on the experience with the Morocco pilot From July 2016 onwards o o Support to Moroccan Govt counterparts: NDCs Strategie Sobre en Carbone GCF proposals? Application of the methodology to other countries November 2016 Organisation of a FAO and/or EBRD event at COP22 to present the methodology and the experience of the pilot countries

27