1313- Climate Change, Materiality and Rice - A Research Project

  • 379 views
Uploaded on

Speaker: Barbara Harriss-White …

Speaker: Barbara Harriss-White
Authors: Barbara Harriss-White, Alfy Gathorne Hardy. D. Narasimha Reddy, Deepak Mishra and R Hema
Date: November 18, 2013
Venue: Cornell University, Ithaca New York
Sponsors: SRI-Rice and International Programs (CALS), Cornell
Subject: Climate Change, Materiality and Rice - A Research Project in Andhra Pradesh in India

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
379
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • LCA boundaries 1% catch 22 – coeffics under not on frontier / over India substitutes labourAllocn between end uses –physical – value criteriaVCA value added – dvt model from quality-diffd V Ch to value-diffd value chain – appropriateness?Governance seller-buyer OK global but what about inf econUngrading and rents forget labourBolting to LCA activities lca detail activities VCA firms less detailed.
  • – see Bryan et al 2012 IFPRI on problems of mitigation – involving adding ag to the CDM – testing in DCs the instns: customary, statutory, governance and incentivising.
  • Koraput and Nuapara (part of undivided Kalahandi) in OdishaChinglepet and Tiruvannamalai in TNJanagaon and Warangal in AP
  • Costs include capital costs but not for land/buildings at the farm level. Capital items costs and emissions allocated over total use for all crops/off farm activity.
  • Costs include capital costs but not for land/buildings at the farm level. Capital items costs and emissions allocated over total use for all crops/off farm activity.
  • This slide just so that people can understand what the axis are for the coming slides, ie the y axis is the unit of interest (in this case kg co2, but in others labour time etc) and the x axis is the farming activities.
  • FYM is for FYM transport, not the FYM itself
  • Technical fix to reduce GHGs – reduce chemical fertiliser with SRI – find out why so high
  • Note how there is a relationship between costs, labour and GHG emissions at cultivation, FYM transport and harvest and weeding. I would ignore the sizes of the peaks when comparing between criteria, as they are on different dimensions.
  • This is to show how there is less and different interaction for HYV. Ie there is a relationship for syn fertilisers,
  • Quite considerable difference in the cost structures of the three technologies. Electricity subsidies are a big policy issue. Note the impact of charging (2Rs/unit) for electricity. Widely stated as reasonable if more reliable, Hema, but an important increase in costs.Note that SRI uses approx half the electricity for pumping as non SRI in APIncreases costs by 6% HYV in TN12% SRI15% SRI control Taking into account water table – even though SRI uses less water it pumps from greater depth.
  • e difference in mill costs/profits is marginal – costs up by 0.6%, profit down by 1%Note this assuming paddy price stay’s constant (ie there is no charge for embodied GHGs in the paddy)

Transcript

  • 1. CLIMATE CHANGE, MATERIALITY AND RICE – A RESEARCH PROJECT - ideas, methods and results Barbara Harriss-White and Alfy Gathorne Hardy with D. Narasimha Reddy, Deepak Mishra and R Hema 1
  • 2. ORIGINS http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/theHar twellPaper/Home.aspx • Thought-process of HARTWELL PAPER (2009) - but see Dubash et al (June 2013 EPW) and Bidwai (2012) • critique of structural flaws of policy for climate change response: • Fails test of history - global goal of emissions reduction not possible; 2013 – energy majors retreat from renewables • Cap and trade has major problems: carbon price s.t. political control (overallocation of permits: lobbies/recession); • Clean devt mechanism also struggling ((non)counterfactuals, measurement, corruption + rent seeking.) 2
  • 3. WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? • ‘Relentless pragmatism’ : decarbonifying the econ desirable as a benefit in itself and also contingent on co-benefits and other goals. • Hartwell’s goals: ren en / en efficiency and access (reduce waste) / respect for eco-systems / protn from risk. • Dubash et al 2013: growth, inclusiveness, environmental gains • Policy instruments not confined to ‘markets’ but include bans, taxes - what about technology? organisation of society? 3
  • 4. CO BENEFITS APPROACH BY NGO/ POLITICAL PARTIES/ TRADE UNIONS/ EXPERT GROUPS IN THE UK
  • 5. INDIAN DEBATE Majority view: • Stock argument : justice • Flow argument : right to remove poverty (with 70% thermal) VERSUS minority view / conclusion / starting point : • FF based development is luxury India can’t afford rate of degradation of natural resources rate of addition to workforce (jobless growth) So leapfrog to clean devt – low C transition - TO WHAT? new development models / new indl revn AC+DC 5
  • 6. IDEAS AND METHODS
  • 7. OUR PROJECT • Global responses to climate change neglect informal economy / ILO’s and NCEUS’project of decent work /standard work • 90% jobs 60% GDP inf econ • 43% workforce has half a year’s work SO? 7
  • 8. Develop methods to 1.think of the economy as a system of capital and labour using materials to produce commodities and physical – solid, liquid and gaseous waste 2. measure parameters of informal economy 8
  • 9. Objectives - developing methods contd • 3. to scope technological alternatives according to several incommensurable criteria (environmental / social / economic) which generate tradeoffs between criteria. • 4. to mainstream social relations of work – quantity and quality of labour
  • 10. Big problems of separate knowledge fields – at least a dozen climate change – climate policy – life cycle assessment – informal economy – value / supply chain analysis – science and technology studies – policy studies – labour studies – agriculture – rice - agricultural markets For 1. and 2. – the materiality of the economy - fuse life cycle assessment (LCA) with value / supply chain analysis (VCA ) - politicise the frontier between formal regulation/ policy and social regulation For 3. the evaluation of incommensurable dimensions of technological choices - use multi-criteria mapping (MCM) and For 4. the study of livelihoods and labour – start with Decent Work / Standard Work (DW) 10
  • 11. Innovative Learning Workshops 11
  • 12. 1. LCA and 2. VCA • LCA measures GHGs at all stages of a productionconsumption process from raw materials procurement to the waste disposal at the end of a consumption process • VCA has a similar concept of a ladder/chain and seeks to compute value added, rents and potential for technological / managerial upgrading • OUR PROJECT SEEKS TO DEVELOP A FUSION (AGH-Hema) that is sensitive to the political space at the frontiers of formal regulation (AP) 12
  • 13. 3.ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY/ POLICY • Research on energy and materials efficiency leads to normative questions: how to scope and analyse technologies / policies reducing environmental impact in the informal economy • LCA leads to MCM experiment (AGH-BHW) • Mitigation technology options (4) assessed by stakeholders (30-40) on incommensurable criteria (min = 3 (costs, GHGs, and labour quantity and quality))
  • 14. 4. WORK AND WORK ALTERNATIVES • Research on the quality of work and production relations leads to nightmare of indicators - 125 in the ILO’s Decent Work • Trades Unions, frequently airbrushed out as ‘stakeholders’, are actively involved here – NTUI – VCA -> labourist supply chain analysis (MM-GM-MS) • LCA develops new measures of work for trade offs with GHGs/energy and costs (AGH) 14
  • 15. CLIMATE CHANGE AND AGRICULTURE – WHY AGRICULTURE? • Agriculture innocent? Small proportion of global GHG emissions? 10-14% versus • USDA (2011) estimate that entire food-system production-distribution-(transport-processingstorage)-consumption-waste PLUS land use change (burning forests for agriculture) = +/- 33 - 45% global GHGs AND agriculture as an emissions floor is ‘poorly understood’ (Anderson, 2011) 15
  • 16. CLIMATE CHANGE AND RICE • Vulnerability – temperature, weeds and pests; rain and crop failure -> yield declines expected -> critical impact on food /feed prices and food security/ availability esp if no change in access and utilisation (S Asian prodn/nutn paradox) • Agenda of adaptation in rice: crop-livestock stress research; irrigation management; biotech innovations (inc. GM and hybrids) ;collective action/farmers’ groups (info – dissemination) • -> funds in new revolutionary high-tech frontier rather than farming systems; focus on adaptation rather than mitigation • Sources: Nelson et al, IFPRI, 2009; Alagh, 2013 16
  • 17. RICE AS A CASE STUDY – HERE -1 • NOT because a big polluter [though food system and all land-based activity thought to account for up to 45% GHG] BUT • Rice is bio-physically complex – emitting various GHGs as well as sequestering them – so scientifically interesting • Rice is socio-technically complex – 4 production systems 4-5 marketing systems –> social scientific interest 17
  • 18. RICE AS A CASE STUDY - 2 • Resources, employment and poverty are entwined in production-distribution systems – >policy interest • Production and distribution weave in and out of the informal economy –> theoretical and policy interest • Food is generally exempt from the scenarios lowering emissions (Anderson/Royal Society 2011) i.e. something of a political special case – but how special ?
  • 19. LCA-VCA-MCM generate cross-cutting themes • Socio-political limits to the reach of state regulative policy, the interface and forms of regulation of the informal economy (A.P.) • The means whereby UN-organised labour makes gains in the informal economy (BHW/ NTUI/CWM) • Innovation and technical change in the informal economy (BHW/GR) 19
  • 20. 20
  • 21. 21
  • 22. 22
  • 23. 23
  • 24. 24
  • 25. 25
  • 26. 26
  • 27. 27
  • 28. 28
  • 29. 30
  • 30. 31
  • 31. 32
  • 32. OBJECTIVES: Through the perspective of different production methods, measure variation in the entire rice supply chain - production and distribution - to understand where, how and why GHGs, labour and money interact. Criteria: physical : water, fossil energy, animal and human energy, greenhouse gases economic/social: costs and returns, quantity and quality of labour
  • 33. Sub-categories of the chain: • • • • Four different production systems in 3 states Different transport distances Different milling types 2 different retail types + PDS • extreme complexity…
  • 34. A stylised model Farm Paddy Transport Paddy Mill Rice Transport Rice Retail
  • 35. Embodied water Human and animal energy Fossil energy Electricity energy Embodied energy GHG emissions Embodied labour Embodied human/animal energy Farm Labour costs Paddy Capital costs Transport Paddy Loans and loan repayments Mill Embodied GHG emissions Rice Ground water Transport Quantity of employment Rice Cost of carbon Cost of electricity Retail Quality of employment Cost of family labour
  • 36. RESULTS 38
  • 37. The role of samples – treat the supply small each stage in with cautionfor each criteria chain Yes. 12 No. 11 10 Does not 9 include GHG 8 Ground water management 7 Fossil energy 6 Total energy 5 Labour quantity 4 M labour quality F labour quality 3 Costs 2 Profit 1 0 0 HYV farm Transport Large3Mill Small retail Large Retail 1 2 4 5
  • 38. The role of each stage in the supply chain for each criteria Yes. 12 No. 11 10 9 GHG 8 Ground water 7 Fossil energy 6 Total energy 5 Labour quantity M labour quality 4 F labour quality 3 Costs 2 Profit 1 0 0 1 HYV farm 2 3 4 5 Transport Large Mill Small retail Large Retail
  • 39. PRODUCTION- variation in paddy yields
  • 40. EMISSIONS ONSEMIE
  • 41. GHG EMISSIONS / KG PADDY - No significant differences at relatively shallow water tables • THESE RESULTS ARE SIMULATED FOR A 7M WATER TABLE
  • 42. Approximate constituent emissions 1.4 kg GHG / kg paddy 1.2 1 0.8 N2O 0.6 CH4 0.4 CO2 0.2 0 HYV Rainfed SRI Organic • Methane from HYV, SRI and Organic from soils. Rainfed methane from draught animals. • Very little CO2 from rainfed as no irrigation and minimal use of tractors (some tractors were used for manure transport in rainfed, but most cultivation and harvesting did not use tractors/harvesters)
  • 43. Activity related emissions – conceptualisation of production through activity kg CO2 eq / kg paddy 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 -0.3
  • 44. Activity related emissions, HYV/intensive kg CO2 eq / kg paddy 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 -0.3
  • 45. Activity related emissions – HYV/intensive kg CO2 eq / kg paddy 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 -0.3 • Irrigation and soil derived methane = 87% of total. Remember that this is at a quite shallow water table
  • 46. kg CO2-eq /kg paddy 1.0 0.8 Constituent emissions SRI (compared to HYV TN in blue) HYV-TN SRI -TNS 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 • High methane emissions due to very high use of manure. • Much lower irrigation based emissions.
  • 47. kg CO2-eq /kg paddy 1.4 Constituent emissions organic (compared to HYV TN in blue) 1.2 1.0 HYV-TN Organic -TNS 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 • Same pattern as HYV, except no synthetic fertiliser emissions and more soil methane due to more FYM.
  • 48. kg CO2-eq /kg paddy 1.0 0.8 Constituent emissions rainfed (compared to HYV TN in blue) HYV-TN Rainfed 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 • Dominated by bullock based emissions and nitrous oxide. If you do not include bullocks, then overall emissions reduce to 50%
  • 49. Nitrogen Use Efficiency • SRI has low N efficiency due to the massive over-supply of nitrogen. SRI uses more synthetic N than HYV/ha, and x 2.5 the amount of manure than HYV HYV in TN 37% Rainfed 45% SRI 31% 51
  • 50. WATER • INTENSIVE / HYV in both states use < 5 t / kg paddy • SRI used about 1.9 t / kg /paddy less than half
  • 51. First problem – water measurement • 1. Measure the field and model the field depth day to day - very difficult • HP of motor known, but pumping is hard to calculate: – “How much electricity to you use?” • Electricity is free, supply is highly erratic, no meters • Pump use often constant when electricity is on, but that varies considerably day by day. • 2. SO Build profiles from farmers who keep watch on well depth / water depth, hours of motor use, HP, and efficiency loss factor 53
  • 52. 2nd problem - water baseline • We’ve used N TN water table as a ‘baseline’, at 7m (since that was the average level for intensive (HYV)rice). • In fact the water table for: – Organic (also Tamil Nadu) was 12 m – SRI (in Andhra Pradesh) was 27 m
  • 53. The impact of simulating an AP water table • With a 27m water table, SRI and rainfed are significantly lower than organic and HYV
  • 54. ENERGY
  • 55. Diesel is not important kg CO2 eq / kg paddy 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 -0.3 Including embodied C of tractor/power tiller
  • 56. Fossil energy 6.0 • Energy (MJ/kg) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 HYV Rainfed SRI Organic • HYV is higher than SRI due to more irrigation (although comparable fertiliser use). • HYV is higher than organic due to no synthetic fertiliser use in organic (although comparable irrigation energy demand)
  • 57. Fossil energy (HYV) 3.5 3.0 MJ kg paddy-1 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
  • 58. All energy used in production / kg (including animal and human) Energy (MJ/kg) 25 20 15 10 5 0 HYV Rainfed SRI Organic
  • 59. Fossil Energy Return on Investment 350 300 EROI 250 200 150 100 50 0 HYV Rainfed SRI Organic
  • 60. LABOUR
  • 61. For most systems labour demand is dominated by transplanting and weeding
  • 62. But rainfed labour requirements are higher and different…
  • 63. This difference is exaggerated by the low yield of rainfed – 7.5 min /kg HYV paddy vs 50 min/kg rain-fed paddy • Demonstrates the labour-displacing impact of technology – in this case tractors and harvesters - - transplanters are displacing labour / responding to labour shortages in some parts of TN. • Weeding – still marked labour use in SRI, even with the use of weeders – more weeds in moist semi-aerobic soil.
  • 64. If we assuming (a) more labour is better and (b) more pay is better, is rainfed rice (RR) the best form of production from the labour perspective? (Is there an alternative? Is some work better than no work?) • Per hectare little difference – per kg high labour demand for RR • Family labour matters for RR; pay = very low for wage lb (Rs 100/d for men Rs 40/day for women) • RR provides Rs 7,740 of employment / ha, compared to the max of Rs 24,802 / ha for HYV TN.
  • 65. Hours/ha Overall gender balance – intensification and feminisation 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 • Women do absolutely more in rainfed, mainly because of their high input to weeding • Women have lost out from dominating weeding to sharing it Female equally with men in SRI, due to shift to male push-weeding machines. Male HYV Rainfed SRI 67
  • 66. INTERACTIONS
  • 67. Interaction of rainfed labour and GHGs
  • 68. Interaction of HYV labour and GHGs
  • 69. COST AND RETURNS - SIMULATIONS
  • 70. IN PRODUCTION
  • 71. 1. Increase wages to labour by 25% HYV TN Rainfed SRI TNS HYV AP Organic TNS Cost increase (%) 6 5 5 9 Profit increase (%) -10 -29 -3 -16 Actual profit /kg 2.7 0.8 7.6 3.4 Actual profit /ha 19,009 4,778 75,729 21,784 11 -8 6.8 31,463 All still profitable
  • 72. 12,000 10,000 2. Charging for electricity Rs/ha 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 HYV Rainfed SRI SRI control 74
  • 73. 2. SIMULATING ELECTRICITY CHARGES • Charging for electricity substantially alters profitability of farming • 2Rs/unit) for electricity. Widely stated as reasonable price. • -> An important increase in costs. • Increases costs by 6% HYV in TN • 12% SRI in AP • 15% SRI control in AP • Note : this simulation takes into account the water table depth – even though SRI uses half the water it pumps from greater depth. • If electricity is costed at Rs 2/unit, all farms are still profitable AT THE TN WATER TABLE LEVEL.
  • 74. 3. Charging for GHG emissions • Rs 0.74 / kg CO2-eq • Taken from Certified Emission Reduction before carbon price crash (ie €12.87 / t) • The figures are identical for kg paddy and ha. • Don’t include family labour costs, or electricity costs. % change in costs with C price % change in profits with C price HYV TN 13 -25 Rainfed 12 -103 SRI TNS 18 -10 HYV TNS 25 -48 Organic TNS 19 -16
  • 75. IN THE POST HARVEST MARKETING SYSTEM / SUPPLY CHAIN
  • 76. Lorry transport (750km) Costs / kg 0.2 0.1 0 0.12 GHG emissions / kg / 750km 0.3 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 Diesel Embodied emissions 0.02 0 Labour: 2.8minutes/kg Pay driver: Rs 600/day driver Pay loader: Rs3.5 sack loading, Rs3/sack unloading (75kg) Profit: 0.01Rs/journey/kg Charge for GHG, diesel increases by 5%.  Some no longer make profits
  • 77. Large mills
  • 78. Large mills Costs (Rs kg rice-1) 12.0 10.0 Costs 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.09 0.08 GHG Increase labour rates by 25%, profits decrease by 1.7%. Charge for GHG emissions, profits decrease by 1.4% kg GHG / kg rice 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 Electricity Biomass use Embodied use emissions Diesel generator
  • 79. RETAIL – LARGE AND SMALL
  • 80. RETAIL (field survey not complete yet) ENERGY AND COSTS GHGs
  • 81. Storage/losses
  • 82. Conclusions. Production • Agricultural production GHGs, energy, water dominate the supply chain – distribution is far less important. • GHG emissions are highly dependent upon the water table. At shallow water table, there is no significant difference in GHG emissions. At deeper water tables, SRI and rainfed show significant GHG savings. • Labour use / ha is highest in SRI and Rain-fed rice
  • 83. Conclusions. Production. 1. GHGs GHGs 1. GHG emissions from three main sources – methane, electricity, nitrous oxide. 2. Mitigate methane through reduced irrigation, and appropriate use and timing of organic inputs (not more than needed, not just before flooding) 3. Reduce embodied electricity GHGs through less water and less technological transmission losses. 4. Reduce N2O emissions through appropriate use of nitrogen – many farms putting far more on than necessary. Reduce N2O emissions through total flooding – but trade-off with methane
  • 84. Conclusions. Production. 2: Water SRI uses significantly less water per kg, but not a significantly less compared to HYV on an area basis.
  • 85. Conclusion . Production 3: Fossil Energy • Irrigation dominates and synthetic fertilisers also very important (mainly nitrogen). Diesel not important (although dominates rainfed as no ground water irrigation or synthetic fertilisers). Embodied energy in machinery is not important. • Energy return on investment (EROI) (fossil energy). Positive for all. V positive for rainfed
  • 86. Conclusions. Transport. • Transport, even simulated for 750km, plays a very small role in the overall chain. • GHG emissions and costs are not well matched. • C price would have big impact on profitability due to low margins
  • 87. Conclusions. Mills • Modern rice mills highly mechanised, so capital a key component • Biomass emissions likely to be more important than normally recorded. • Due to the progressive labour displacement increasing wages to labour makes minimal impact on profits • High degree of variability in profit.
  • 88. Conclusions. Retail. • Large retail is surprisingly carbon intensive, although sample size is low. • Labour use / quantity is important in retail. Labour quality (Y) appears to be relatively high in large retail compared to the rest of the chain but hours are long and pay in small retail is higher. • Profitability appears to be lower in large rather than small retail – deliberate loss leading strategy • Energy use is substantial in large, but not small retail.
  • 89. Cautions • Data results from a range of ways of knowing: measurement, recall, calculation and extrapolation as careful as possible • Alone they cannot be used as a prescriptive tool for policy makers – sustainability is much more complicated than just GHG emissions and labour use (biodiversity loss; immediate water pollution etc)
  • 90. UNIQUE SELLING POINT! • • • • • But our approach is a novel combination of 1. first hand fieldwork; 2. practical alternatives; 3. multidisciplinary analysis of criteria 4. the integration of measurement methods with a consultation comparing expert and general public evaluations of policy outcomes from the measurement research. • 5. multiple elements of sustainability from a whole supply chain with many elements in the informal sector. The research raises issues of trade-offs/synergies in a novel manner and often for the first time
  • 91. MORE ON OUR WEBSITE • http://www.southasia.ox.ac.uk/resourcesgreenhouse-gases-technology-and-jobs-indiasinformal-economy-case-rice 93