Docstoc

Food and Climate Change

Document Sample
Food and Climate Change Powered By Docstoc
					Food and Climate Change
The world on a plate Tara Garnett Food Climate Research Network

This presentation
• Climate change: an overview • Food & its contribution to climate changing emissions by life cycle & food type • Specific issues: transport, refrigeration, waste, health • Climate change & its impact on food supply chains • How might we reduce food chain emissions? • What‟s going on? Government & industry • Observations & conclusions • About the Food Climate Research Network

1. Climate change: an overview

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 concentrations

Climate change…
• Temperature increase of 0.74ºC in last 100 years • 11 of last 12 years have been the warmest on record • Warming of oceans • Faster than average warming in Arctic

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 2050 • UK not meeting our CO2 reduction targets • Will EU meet its 2012 Kyoto target (8% cut)?

Defining terms
GHGs = greenhouse gas emissions CO2 the main GHG but…

…others also important especially for food • Methane 23 x greater global warming potential than CO2 • Nitrous oxide 296 x greater global warming potential than CO2 • Refrigerant gases thousands of times greater than CO2

2. Overall food related GHG emissions

Need to consider emissions at all stages
Need to consider emissions at all stages in the food chain: • Agriculture • Manufacturing • Refrigeration • Transport • Packaging • Retail • Home • Waste They all affect one another

A typical food LCA diagram

Source: http://www-mat21.slu.se/publikation/pdf/Programplan2004.pdf

Overall food-related contribution to GHG emissions
• EU EIPRO report: 31% all EU consumption related GHGs • FCRN UK estimates: around 19% (probably an underestimate) - Defra estimates similar • World agriculture contribution – 17 - 32% total global emissions • Huge uncertainty / variability between countries / differences in what‟s included and what‟s not

UK GHG emissions – how does food contribute?
Fertiliser manufacture 1.0% Agriculture 7.4%

Food manufacturing 2.2%

Packaging (incomplete data) 0.9% Transport incl overseas 2.5% Home food related 2.1% Retail 0.9%

Non food 81.3%

Catering 1.5% Waste disposal 0.3%

FCRN work in progress 2007

The GHG „hotspots‟ vary by food
1. Agriculture
2. Manufacture

Meat & dairy; glasshouse veg
Bread baking

3. Storage 4. Transport 5. Cooking
6. Packaging

Frozen peas or potatoes Anything airfreighted eg. berries Baked potato, pasta, tea, coffee
Small bottle of beer

7. Waste

Fruit & veg

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?

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 emissions • Similar to this Dutch study…

Contribution of food groups to Dutch GHG emissions KG/CO2e
Klaas Jan Kramer, Henri C Moll, Sanderine Nonhebel, Harry C Wilting, Greenhouse gas emissions related to Dutch food consumption, Energy Policy 27 (1999) 203-216, Elsevier Publications

Dairy, 22.9 Other food products, 3 Bread, pastry & flour, 13.3

Potatoes, fruit & veg, 14.6 Oils & fats, 3 Meat, meat products & fish, 28.2 Beverages & products containing sugar, 14.9

Food impacts by type: Fruit & vegetables
• GHG contributions approx 2.5% total • Trends: increasing consumption of GHG intensive produce:
– Air freighted – Unseasonal protected – Pre-prepared – Fragile / spoilable

Key impact areas
• Transport
– 1.5% f&v air freighted, accounting for 40 – 50% total f&v transport emissions – Air freight growing rapidly

• Refrigeration

– from post harvest  home – Trade offs AND synergies with transport

• Waste
– Approx 25% fruit and veg wasted – most at domestic stage – Supply chain demands make waste inevitable

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?)

Food impacts by type: Alcoholic drinks
• Contributes around 1.5% UK total • Not much difference between types • Hotspots: hospitality sector, transport, packaging • Lack of data

Relative contribution of stages to beer emissions (draft & packaged)
100% 90% 80% 47.90 70% Consumption 60% 50% 40% 30% 11.48 20% 10.0 10% 0% 4.21 5.81 20.88 Transport Packaging production Brew ing Malting Agriculture

Relative contribution of stages to wine emissions
100% 90% 80% 70% Consumption 60% 50% 40% 17.45 30% 20% 10% 0% 24.93 34.90 Transport Packaging production Total agriculture and alcohol production 22.73

Relative contribution of stages to spirit emissions
100% 19.14 90%

80% 19.18 Consumption Transport 19.18 Packaging production Distilling Malting Agriculture 23.02

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

2.49

10%

16.98

0%

Trends:
• More wine: relative importance of transport to grow? • More chilled: cold lagers, cider over ice, chilled wine, spirit mixers • More in-home: more single serve packages • Hospitality sector?? • More drinking

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. BUT
– Rebound effect – International trade

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 impacts • UK (from FCRN study):
– 6.6% production related GHG emissions (NETCEN & other) – 8% consumption emissions (Cranfield plus volumes based on MLC & Defra)

Projected global trends in meat & dairy demand
500

450
400 Million tonnes

Poultry takes biggest share of growth
Developing countries meat

350
300

250
200

Developing countries milk
Developed countries meat

Developed countries milk

150
100

50
0 1980 1990 2002 Year
Source: FAO 2006

2015

2030

But per capita developing world demand still lower than developed world (IFPRI 2001)

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 means • Some livestock rearing utilises unproductive land & by-products • Would non-animal substitutes be any better for GHG emissions?

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 implications • The outputs from the system and GHG implications

Different systems have different inputs & outputs
Dairy bulls Dairy cows Beef bulls Suckler cows Suckler bull calves Dairy bull calves Dairy replacement heifer calves calves Suckler heifer calves

MILK

MEAT

Beef bulls

Dairy cows

Crossbreed calves male and female

Livestock system inputs
• 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 indirect • 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?

Livestock system outputs
• Nutrition: protein, calcium, iron, B12, fat… • Leather & wool • Rendered products: glues, soaps, pet food… • Manure: nutrients and soil quality • Soil carbon sequestration • Landscape aesthetics & biodiversity

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?

General conclusions on meat, dairy and nutrition
• • • • • Good source of calcium, iron & Vit B12 Not so important for protein Provides fat in excess Livestock products not essential But useful in small quantities esp. for vulnerable groups • Different issues for rich in developed world and extremely poor in developing world

Non food benefits
• Leather: useful byproducts but not „needed‟ at current levels (but developing world industries)
– Comes with own environmental downsides

• Wool: v. small textile player • Rendered products: are we making the most efficient use of the carcass?

Manure
• Costs & benefits
– Avoids need for mineral fertilisers (although harder to optimise input levels) – Contributes to soil quality / carbon sequestering properties of soil – Leads to methane and nitrous oxide emissions

Soil carbon sequestration, biodiversity & aesthetics (grazing land)
• Pasture land important for carbon sequestration & biodiversity • But 20% land degraded by overgrazing worldwide (73% in dry areas) • Hence carbon losses and decline in biodiversity

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.

Mitigation options
1. Husbandry (feed, breed etc) 2. Changing management (organic vs non organic, intensive vs extensive)
3. Managing outputs (manure)

4. Changing numbers

In the context of
• Framing issues: Animal welfare, biodiversity, long term soil quality and soil carbon storage, rural economy • Managing trade offs: With other social / environmental concerns & pollution swapping • Land use: Need to consider the opportunity cost of using land for one purpose over another

GHGS: Foods with major impacts
• Meat and dairy
– 8% + UK estimate – 13.5% 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 emissions

• Certain kinds of fruit and vegetables
– Veg diets not always better

• „Unnecessary‟ foods and drinks – alcohol, beverages, confectionary
– Whose needs? Who defines them? (more later)

3. Specific issues: Transport, refrigeration, waste, health

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 consider
– Eg. agricultural production, manufacturing efficiency, energy mix, cold storage, waste

• On the other hand…relationship between transport distance & refrigeration, & waste • Structural impacts on economy and infrastructure investment • Conflicting demands on land eg. biofuels. What should we use our land for? • „Answer‟ now might be different to „answer‟ in 5 – 10 years time

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 CO2 • Kenyan green beans 20-26 times more GHG intensive than seasonal UK beans

Air freight continued….
• Absolute impacts small but in relative terms growing – and it subsidises passenger air travel • The greater the volume, the cheaper it is to fly food • Food is the fastest growing air freighted commodity • Might climate change increase use of air freight (variability of supply leads to more use of emergency „top ups‟)?

Is air always the worst option?
Sometimes other options can be more GHG intensive (eg. hothouse flowers in Feb from Holland compared with those from Kenya) BUT
This doesn‟t meant that air freight is „okay‟ It just means that both have very high impacts!

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 all less developed countries 1-1.5 mill people dependent on export horticulture • in SSA (up to 120,000 directly employed) • Lives depend upon it – some excellent projects • Joined up Govt policy implication?

Food refrigeration & GHGs
Refrigeration Carbon Contribution to UK life cycle emissions GHG (total 179 MTCe) stage MT Manufacturing 0.28 0.18% Food retail & catering Domestic UK total 1.46 1.9 3.64 0.97% 1.24% 2.39%

Embedded impacts from imports & emissions from mobile refrigeration not included. IF THEY WERE....

Then overall refrigeration GHGs 3-3.5% of UK total
• Total food related GHGs around 19-20% • Food refrigeration = 17-18% all food GHGs

Reducing impacts: How far will technology get us?
• Savings between 20-50% possible • Novel technologies eg. trigeneration • Institutional inertia & short term costing • Policies in place / being developed • Masses of advice

But we now live in a refrigeration dependent society: Why?
• Changes in foods & drinks we buy • Changes in how we live our lives
– – – – – Economic changes Weekly shopping Women Lifestyles Housing design/ temperatures

• Infrastructure development stimulates cold food manufacturing which stimulates infrastructure investment – and reinforces behavioural norms

Refrigeration infrastructure

Socioeconomic changes Refrigeration dependence

Food innovations

Food transport

Packaging

Future refrigeration trends?
Some projections  refrig. emissions set to decline. But: • A warming climate? More dependency • New product innovation?
– product/technology/behaviour interface

• Can‟t look at refrigeration emissions alone:
– Nexus of transport, packaging, retail and IT infrastructure within which refrigeration technology is situated.

In short
• Refrigeration as marker of unsustainable energy use?
– Nodal point of energy intensive practices/behaviours

• Policies need to tackle not just refrigeration energy use but refrigeration dependency

A less refrigeration dependent food chain
Foods • Less meat and dairy • Fewer „fragile‟ foods • More seasonal robust produce

More frequent shopping / cooking patterns Optimum fridge size / level of infrastructure?
Food safety / waste - issues more nuanced than at first appears.

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.

The most wasted foods
• Top 5 waste categories: fruit and veg, meat and fish, bakery, dairy, rice and pasta • High waste foods = mostly also GHG intensive • Most waste occurs at household stage – once food has „embedded‟ upstream GHG emissions
• BUT: • 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?

What about organic?
• Many benefits to organic:
– Long term soil quality – Biodiversity

• But it‟s not always less GHG intensive
– Eg. Poultry

• ALTHOUGH it sometimes is! • So how do you act consistently?

Is healthy food less GHG intensive?
It depends…

Two balanced meals… A ninefold GHG difference
Pork
Carrots Potatoes

Rice

Dried peas

Tomatoes

Production of meal on the left is nine times less GHG intensive than the one on the right
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, pp.277-293

4. Impact of climate change on the food system

Impacts on agriculture
Huge uncertainty... Impacts depend on Interplay between:
• • • • • Gradual temperature increase CO2 effect Wildcards (extreme drought, flooding) Water Economics, demographics, infrastructure

Impacts continued...
• May be positive in N. Countries up to 2050 - then negative • Poor countries – negative and then more negative • Changes in crop suitability • Crop and livestock diseases • Water • Poor will suffer most

The picture by 2050

Source: IPCC 2004 Wkg Gp II Ch5

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

Major commodity crops - impacts
– Wheat: North – South divide – Rice: water shortages – Cocoa: W. Africa – threat from drought – Coffee: more vulnerable – Wine grapes: water? Quality? – Cane sugar: water

• Increased developing world dependence on imports from developed world

Post harvest impacts
Food sourcing, processing and distribution
• • • • Disruptions to transport & stationary infrastructure Unpredictability can lead to crop spoilage & waste Changes in sourcing decisions? More imports to developing world

Consumption
• Changes in consumer demand? • Consequences for food industry & household energy use? • Food safety problems?

The CC context
• Physical effects of CC need to be seen in social, economic, political, demographic and infrastructural context – feedback interactions • Climate change exacerbates existing vulnerabilities of poor in developing world • The more rapid the climate change the harder it will be to adapt • Poor farmers less likely to be able to adapt – infrastructural, political, economic barriers

What might the impacts be for food supply?
• Current sources no longer viable? • More variability of supply? • Challenges for transport / distribution infrastructure • The „right‟ sourcing answer from a GHG perspective depends on which part of the supply chain cleans up its act / adapts first

• Impact of legislation may be more important in the short term

5. Reducing food‟s GHG contribution

How far will technology get us?
• Agriculture: plant breeding; better nutrient use; alternative fuel sources for greenhouses • Manufacturing: CHP / trigeneration / polygeneration / life cycle costing • Refrigeration: 20-50% efficiency savings possible; novel technologies including non HFC refrigeration, trigeneration (increases efficiency from 38% to 76%). • Packaging: lightweighting, alternative materials, ambient storage packaging

More technological options
• Transport: modal shift, efficient supply chains; cleaner fuels (in future years) • Retailing: massive scope for improvements in lighting and refrigeration; renewables • Domestic: energy efficient appliances, visible energy metering • Lots of little impacts/solutions rather than one big one

But
• Will this get us to an 80% cut by 2050? • Technological improvements don‟t address the root problems of the way we consume • And technology shapes behaviour, fostering new (energy dependent) norms • Two examples…

Eg.1: Ready meal vs home cooking
• Is the energy efficient ready meal the answer?
      No trimmings or scraps: less waste Production stage scraps can be used for animal feed No packaging for individual ingredients More efficient industrial ovens Only transport what is eaten: less transport Recent LCA showed little difference between home and ready-meal

But: complex multi-ingredient, elaborately prepared food
reliant on long supply chains and refrigeration becomes the norm – triggering further innovations…problem exacerbated?

Eg. 2: Food waste: how to reduce?
• Wasted food = wasted CO2 + CH4 • One third food bought is not eaten • The 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 cucumber • The 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!

What might a less GHG intensive way of eating look like?
• Changing the balance of what we eat
– Less meat & dairy - lower down on food chain

• Seasonal field grown foods (less storage, heating & transport)
– UK seasonal when possible – Elsewhere seasonal when not

• Not eating certain foods
– Avoiding hothoused/air freighted produce (but developing world?)

• Reducing dependence on cold chain
– Robust foods (including less processed) – Frequent non car based shopping / frequent turnover of food

Less GHG intensive eating
• But wasting less
– Eat what we buy, soon after we‟ve bought it – Accepting variability of quality and supply

• Efficient cooking
– Cook for more people and for several days – Less use of oven

• Redefining quality
– Accepting different notions of quality – Accepting more variability

How?
Life is complicated and food is a complex part of life

Food and its meanings
Nurture
Guilt Habit

Neurosis
Need

Entertainment Pleasure Ritual

Food
Satisfaction

Social glue
Power Comfort

Love Status Bribery Religious significance

Time-pass

Influenced by wider forces
• • • • • • • • • • Price / affordability Availability Time – work / „stressed leisure‟ syndrome Culture, social & family expectations, norms, aspirations Knowledge, information, fashions & beliefs (education, media, marketing) Demographic changes: ageing population, single person society, wealth Technological changes Season Tastes Habits

What might this mean for the food industry?
Consistency, choice, ubiquity, availability, variety…

Versus
Less choice? More variability of quality? Non availability? A move away from cheap meat? From chilled foods….

You cannot wait for consumers to change their behaviour
• They don‟t know enough • They don‟t care enough • Behaviour „lock-in‟ • They won‟t unless they have to... Govt and industry must take the lead – change the context of consumption

6. The policy context – global and UK

The global context
• • • • • • Rising population – 9 billion by 2050 Increasing food / oil prices Dash for biofuels Nutrition transition Land pressures (Climate change legislation...)

A few framing policies/initiatives
• • • • Kyoto Protocol Bali 2007 agreement on deforestation EU Emissions Trading Scheme European Commission Energy Policy
– 20% GHG cut by 2020 (should be 30%+) – Biofuels 10% transport fuels by 2020 (criticisms)

• Biofuels support – EU, US

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 ahead • 26-32% cut by 2020 • This is good but we need 80-90% cuts to keep emissions below 450ppm • Target currently being reconsidered

Food/climate relevant legislation and initiatives (UK)
• Climate Change Agreements • Carbon Reduction Commitment (consultation) • Food Industry Sustainability Strategy and „champions groups‟ recommendations • Market Transformation Programme (radical improvements in devt and uptake of energy efficient technology) • Cabon Trust advice and support • Various Defra research programmes • Product „road maps‟ on reducing impacts (eg. dairy products • Developing consistent GHG labelling methodology (with business and British Standards) • Thinking about personal carbon allowances (could food be incorporated into this?)

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?

Government: Some policy tools
What measures have worked for food & how can we strengthen them?

Regulation
Legislation Caps, quotas, thresholds, bans

Consumers

Policy instruments

Economic and fiscal Voluntary agreements Education, marketing & promotion
Social pressure

Food industry

Technological change & uptake

What new measures should we be considering?

7. What is the food industry doing?

Some food industry initiatives agriculture
• Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (Nestle, Unilever, Danone, Kraft etc.) • EUREPGAP • Roundtables on sustainable soy / palm oil • Not specifically climate focused

Food industry initiatives: retailers
• • • • • • M & S: £200 million „Plan A‟ All operations carbon neutral by 2012 25% energy cut; power stores with green electricity Label and reduce air freighted produce Tesco: – Label and reduce air freighted produce – 50% energy cut in stores and DCs by 2020 – £100 million renewables fund – Halve distribution emissions / case in 5 yrs • Migros (Switzerland) – to introduce carbon labelling • French and Australian announcements

Food industry initiatives: manufacturers
• Tate & Lyle: biomass boiler to replace 70% fossil energy • McCain's: up to 70% electricity needs from renewables including wind turbines and CHP plant running on biogas • Cadbury‟s: 50% absolute cut in carbon emissions by 2020 • Many others starting to carbon footprint their operations • But focus of food industry is on efficiency rather than shifts in consumption.

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 change
• And technological change alone creates further behavioural changes

• Need not just to do things more efficiently but… • …Sell / don‟t sell different stuff - „choice editing‟

8. Observations and conclusions

Food‟s impacts
• Climate change is happening • Food contributes to a significant proportion of global GHG emissions • All stages in the supply chain contribute to emissions • Agriculture most significant stage / meat and dairy most GHG intensive food • Global food demand is moving in more GHG intensive directions

• Climate change will affect global food supply - poor regions will suffer most • Technology unlikely to get us to an 80% cut • Consumption shifts needed too • Policy and govt beginning to tackle problem but only from „efficiency‟ perspective

Some major concerns
• 9 billion people on planet in 2050 • Increase in numbers in absolute poverty AND growing wealth in many parts of developing world • The poor will suffer most from climate change • An 80%+ cut in developed world GHGs needed • Tackle problems in isolation or as a whole atomised vs synthetic approach?

Land – the big challenge
• In the context of 9 billion on planet by 2050 • What 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

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?

Some research challenges
• We need to: • Gain „good enough‟ understanding of where the problem lies by particular food type • Work out how far technology can get us • Improve understanding on what sorts of consumption patterns (in the context of these technology changes) can help achieve reductions • Understand more clearly how technological innovation influences behaviour and vice versa • Frame the climate change debate in the context of other social, environmental and economic concerns • LCA can inform policy but vagaries of consumer and business behaviour ALSO need to inform LCA

9. About the FCRN

The FCRN: some context
Funded by UK research council www.epsrc.ac.uk & based at Surrey University (www.surrey.ac.uk)

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 reduction • Sharing and communicating information on food & climate change with 760 + member network

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?

FCRN outputs
1. Four comprehensive studies so far:
1. 2. 3. 4. Fruit & vegetables Alcoholic drinks Food refrigeration Meat & dairy

2. See here for publications http://www.fcrn.org.uk/researchLib/index.ht m

Communication & networking
Communicates information & fosters knowledge-sharing to 760+ members
• Across disciplines • Across sectors (eg. Govt, business, NGOs, academic)

How?
• • • • Mailing / newslist on food/climate issues Runs seminars Meetings & presentations Website

Thank you and please join
Tara Garnett taragarnett@blueyonder.co.uk www.fcrn.org.uk

Food Climate Research Network


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:153
posted:4/27/2008
language:English
pages:111