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

Similar documents
Transcription:

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

Product carbon footprinting product carbon footprinting is a 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 released during the life cycle of a product expressed per unit of product main greenhouse gases in agriculture: CO 2, N 2 O, CH 4 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 2

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 ( farmer practice ): often over-fertilization, AS and urea based (acidifying effect), no application of micro-nutrients 350 1.4 300 1.2 250 1 kg/ha 200 150 kg/ha 0.8 0.6 100 0.4 50 0.2 0 N P2O5 K2O S MgO CaO 0 B Mn Zn farmer practice PPP program farmer practice PPP program 3

Case study: description Processes included in the product carbon footprint calculation following international methods: greenhouse gas emissions embodied in farm inputs emissions arising on farm the transport of the green beans to the next supply chain partner Aims of the analysis: 1. to quantify the climate mitigation potential of changing from common farmer practice to a more balanced plant nutrition program 2. to quantity potential yield increases 3. to assess the impact of changing the fertilization program on farmer incomes 4

1. Climate mitigation: the average product carbon footprint was 16% lower in the PPP fertilization program 1800 kg CO 2 e/t of green beans 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 energy use other inputs: production & transport lime: soil CO2 urea: soil CO2 compost: N2O emissions mineral fertiliser: N2O emissions mineral fertiliser: transport 0 average farmer practice average PPP program mineral fertiliser: production Average kg mineral N/ha: 325 264 Calculation based on the Carbon Footprint Product Category Rules for Green Coffee (Environdec 2013) 5

Carbon footprint of NPK 15-15-15 in different world regions (mixed acid route) (plant gate) 2.0 kg CO 2 e/kg NPK 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Europe Russia US N-Africa China coal China gas All calculated by Fertilizers Europe (FE) for 2011 using: a) Europe: real and detailed data from FE member companies; b) other world regions: expert estimates from Integer Research for FE 6

2. Yields: 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 13 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percentage change (PPP program vs. farmer practice) 7

3. Farmer profitability: on average, farmer profitability increased by 14% in the PPP program Summary of 71 demos in 4 provinces in Vietnam (2011-2014) Farmer practice PPP program Difference absolute Difference in % Yield (t/ha) 3.9 4.4 +0.5 +13% Cost of fertilizers (USD/ha) 1,207 1,315 +108 +9% Profit (USD/ha) 5,813 6,621 +808 +14% 8

Summary and conclusions Improved plant nutrition resulted in several co-benefits: a reduced product carbon footprint increased yields improved farmer incomes There was a large range in the climate mitigation achieved on the different farms. Improving individual farm management represents a significant mitigation opportunity. More work is ongoing on such case studies to further reduce the environmental impacts of coffee production (www.yara.com/coffee). 9

Thank you! katharina.plassmann@yara.com www.yara.com/coffee 10

Case study farm: calculation of farmer profitability Farmer practice PPP program Difference (absolute) Difference (in %) Scrubland control Weeding & space making 8,800,000 8,800,000 0 0 Pruning 4,800,000 4,800,000 0 0 Fertilization Fertilizers 21,938,500 29,041,667 +7,103,167 +32% Labor 2,880,000 1,280,000-1,600,000-56% Pesticides and fungicides Pesticides and fungicides 420,000 420,000 0 0 Labor 800,000 800,000 0 0 Irrigation Gasoline 3,441,270 3,441,270 0 0 Labor 2,880,000 2,880,000 0 0 Harvesting 14,720,000 12,960,000-1,760,000-12% Total costs 60,679,770 64,422,937 +3,743,167 +6% Yield (t/ha) 3.03 3.34 +0.31 +10% Income (at 39,500,000 VND/t of green beans) Net income (income minus costs) 119,527,000 131,851,000 +12,324,000 +10% 58,847,230 67,428,063 +8,580,833 +15% PPP program: Labor costs for fertilizer application are lower because the fertilizer is spread on the surface while in the farmer practice plots, rows are being dug; harvesting is cheaper in the PPP plots because of more uniform ripening VND = Vietnamese Dong 11