Interventions that reduce FLW and have a large mitigation impact (Gillian Galford, University of Vermont) v2
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•302 views
Meeting on food loss and waste as a climate change mitigation strategy November 14, 2018 Hosted by CCAFS Low Emissions Development as part of its Learning Platform on Low Emission Options
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Similar to Interventions that reduce FLW and have a large mitigation impact (Gillian Galford, University of Vermont) v2
Similar to Interventions that reduce FLW and have a large mitigation impact (Gillian Galford, University of Vermont) v2 (20)
More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Interventions that reduce FLW and have a large mitigation impact (Gillian Galford, University of Vermont) v2
- 1. Gillian L. Galford, Olivia Peña, Julie Nash, Noel Gurwick, Gillian Pirolli, Julianna White, E. Lini Wollenberg Interventions that reduce FLW and have a large mitigation impact
- 2. USAID Feed the Future Galford et al. In Prep.
- 3. Interventions for FLW Galford et al. In Prep.
- 4. Landscape transitions Crop transitions Rice crops Crops (non rice) Fertilizer Livestock - 4.7M TotalAnnualtCO2e Landscape and crop transitions Management practice improvements Increased emissions Reduced emissions/ increased C sequestration (1,865,626) (905,776) (433,447) (616,320) (32,068) (819,848) 435,313 1,723,672 5,802 2.1 M Grewer et al. 2018, ERL GHG impacts of Feed the Future
- 5. Average FLW reductions (%) by product for Feed the Future 0 5 10 15 20 Rice Vegetables Maize Dairy Market Goods Galford et al. In Prep. 2-40%2-20%10-20%3-15% 1-20%Range:
- 6. FLW reductions by type and by agricultural product (tonnes) Galford et al. In Prep.
- 7. Total emissions reductions due to FLW interventions (tCO2-e) Galford et al. In Prep.
- 8. (33,489) (202,948) (379,883) Reducing rice maturity duration Alternate wetting and drying Fertilizer deep placement Urea Deep Placement (UDP) Alt. Wetting & Drying (AWD) Short Duration Variety (SDV) Net emissions reductions and carbon sequestration Total Annual tCO2e AAPI Bangladesh Promoted UDP with adoption anticipated on 1.8 million ha of rice. Emission reductions due to decrease in fertilizer and loses of nitrogen through volatilization, surface runoff, or leaching of nitrate. HARVEST Cambodia Introduced SDV rice to an estimated 76,893 ha in the project area. This rice variety reduces the total duration of cropland flooding and emission of methane. Galford et al. In Prep. Interventions Analysis– Irrigated Rice
- 9. (7,434) (67,287) (150,965) (574,555) 1,704,067 Breeding improvements Feed quality improvements Grassland improvements Herd size management Herd weight dynamicsFeed Quantity /Herd Weight Net emissions and carbon sequestration PRIME Ethiopia REGAL Kenya Herd Size Management Grassland Improvements Feed Quality Improvements Breeding Improvements Total Annual tCO2e Empowered stakeholders to collectively design systems for the effective management of pasture areas and water points. Specifically, the project supported soil and water conservation measures, enclosures of degraded pastures, and selective bush tinning. Promoted both livestock management practices that significantly increased productivity per livestock animal. Due to these interventions, the project predicted an overall decrease in the size of the animal herd. Galford et al. In Prep. Interventions Analysis– Livestock
- 10. Gillian L. Galford, Olivia Peña, Julie Nash, Noel Gurwick, Gillian Pirolli, Julianna White, E. Lini Wollenberg Interventions that reduce FLW and have a large mitigation impact
Editor's Notes
- This article discusses the ability of FLW to contribute to reaching the SDG through an investigation of value chain interventions, and the extent of which FLW reduction can reduce GHG emissions. With a focus on developing countries, this analysis uses case studies from 13 USAID Feed the Future agricultural development projects aimed at FLW interventions. The 12 countries of focus are located in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean with food systems ranging from maize-based diets to dairy herding livelihoods. We evaluate the use of interventions taking place across the value chain between input suppliers, producers, processors, and markets with interventions including pre-harvest management practices, harvesting, processing, storage, and transportation between stages. With a focus on the opportunity of GHG emission reduction, we review the pathway of emission reduction based on avoided production. Specifically, when there is an increase of food available due to decrease FLW, this could contribute to less production demand, leading to a reduction in resources needed for production, such as energy or fertilizer (Kendall, 2000).
- 12 activities focused on because of available documentation of the projects addressing FLW, availability of staff for interviews and activities were relevant to emissions reductions. These projects, located in 12 countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean (Figure 2), worked with multiple crops and livestock production systems. FLW interventions were most common in maize and rice, though one project, MARKETS II, included FLW interventions in six commodities.
- Input choice: A Nigerian project informed farmers on selecting disease and pest resistant cocoa, qualities important to buyers. Interventions in a Rwanda project focused on financial sustainability, knowledge transfer, and decision feasibility when identifying livestock genetic qualities and breeding choices for productive and healthy animals. Harvesting: A Haitian project promoted the use of cutting poles to reduce harvest damage to mangos from latex burns, which increases the market acceptance. Processing: All projects included FLW interventions involving: a) improved product processing to increase storage time and b) hygienic measures to promote food safety. Many processing interventions also involved training; some involved both new processing equipment and training to use equipment properly. The development of fish processing techniques in Nigeria were based on recommendations by fish producers and processors necessary to scale-up their practices Storage: Most projects with FLW interventions included improved product storage. Capital-intensive interventions included providing storage containers or equipment to fabricate packaging. Some storage interventions combined education and innovation by training producers on new methods to store products or create storage infrastructure. Storage interventions considered the need for cooling or refrigeration devices and facilities for highly perishable products like meat or dairy. The introduction of farmer and processor training in Ghana demonstrated construction techniques to improve silos with locally accessible, and often natural, materials. An Ethiopian project supported the availability of portable bag sewing machines that increases the efficiency of storage and decrease of waste Transportation: Almost half of the projects in the study included transportation-related interventions. Many interventions in the transportation stage were also applicable at the storage stage, as it is economical and efficient for storage solutions to also be safe and efficient for transport. Some transportation interventions noted the importance of well-maintained and accessible roadways and systems to connect various value chain stakeholders. A few interventions focused on strategically located collection and distribution centers, in order to be accessible to a substantial number of producers, processors, and distributors. In Ethiopia, a dairy-based project identified a need for improved cold-chain storage and transportation systems. A Haitian project implemented donkey pack frames to store and protect products, ideal for vehicle-inaccessible areas.
- Looking at interventions across categories is more illuminating to understand the drivers of the mitigation co-benefits. Landscape and crop transitions 1) Landscape transitions- Within the agricultural development projects, project interventions focused on both avoided land conversion (avoided change from forest) and active land conversion (agricultural or degraded lands changed to forest). 2) Crop transitions- This area include transitions to perennial crops or agroforestry. Also transitions from flooded rice systems to other crops such as wheat. Transitions land into irrigated rice. Management practice improvements 1) Rice crops- AWD, UDP, Short Duration Rice 2) Crops- Soil, manure, and water management improvements- also includes crop residue burning reduction and perennial management. 3) Fertilizer- increases and decreases 4) Livestock- herd size management, feed quality and breeding improvements. Grassland increases. With better feeding practices and increases in cow weight comes increased emissions.
- FLW interventions in the 13 USAID projects examined could provide GHG emission savings of 384,000 tCO2e/year. This is equivalent to the emissions from almost 900,000 barrels of oil consumed, according to the EPA’s GHG equivalency calculator, (EPA 2017) We calculated the impact of FLW interventions as the change in effective yields using a reference of business as usual (BAU) (Equation 1). Equation 1. FLW intervention impact = (FLWintervention x yieldintervention) - (FLWBAU x yieldBAU) We estimated GHG emissions and carbon sequestration associated with the business-as-usual approachand improved agricultural practices using the Ex-Ante carbon balance tool (EX-ACT) developed by FAO (Bernoux et al. 2010, Bockel et al. 2013, Grewer et al. 2016), or using other methods if they were more appropriate for that value chain (Grewer et al. 2016, Grewer et al. In Review Citation). EX-ACT is a bookkeeping model that accounts for a variety of GHGs, practices, and environments. In accounting for the emission implications of FLW, our estimates only included production of the lost or wasted food, not emissions resulting from its decomposition. This work, and most work in FLW, does not account for the possibility of increased emissions introduced by new processing methods, storage, or transportation interventions.
- Flooded rice interventions that provide mitigation co-benefits include the expansion of alternate wetting and drying (AWD), short duration varieties (SDV) of rice, and fertilizer deep placement (FDP). AWD is a management practice in irrigated lowland rice characterized by periodic drying and reflooding of rice fields. Although the practice has strong GHG impacts per hectare (mean of -4.88 tCO2e across occurrences), it is implemented over a relatively small area. FDP is a specific fertilizer management technology that improves nutrient use efficiency, by lowering the nitrogen lost to the environment and reducing the amount of fertilizer required. FDP has a low impact per hectare (average of -0.11 tCO2e across occurrences) but a very high scale of application (1.8 million ha cultivated area). SDV rice shortens the duration of crop production, reducing the total duration of cropland flooding and emission of methane. SDV rice has a low impact per hectare (average of -1.26 tCO2e across occurrences) but a moderate scale of application (0.07 million ha cultivated area).
- Regarding herd management, two projects development interventions design to reduce livestock herd sizes, resulting in a net change in annual GHG emissions of -0.57 million tCO2e. Although an important drivers of productivity, feed quality and breeding improvements had limited mitigation impact. Improving grazing land management can influence the removal, growth, and flora of grasses, which can improve the carbon storage in soils (Gerber et al. 2013, Herrero et al. 2016). Given the geographic extent of the projects, the relative extent of grassland management is small at 151,706 ha, resulting in a net change in annual GHG emissions of -0.15 million tCO2e.
- This article discusses the ability of FLW to contribute to reaching the SDG through an investigation of value chain interventions, and the extent of which FLW reduction can reduce GHG emissions. With a focus on developing countries, this analysis uses case studies from 13 USAID Feed the Future agricultural development projects aimed at FLW interventions. The 12 countries of focus are located in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean with food systems ranging from maize-based diets to dairy herding livelihoods. We evaluate the use of interventions taking place across the value chain between input suppliers, producers, processors, and markets with interventions including pre-harvest management practices, harvesting, processing, storage, and transportation between stages. With a focus on the opportunity of GHG emission reduction, we review the pathway of emission reduction based on avoided production. Specifically, when there is an increase of food available due to decrease FLW, this could contribute to less production demand, leading to a reduction in resources needed for production, such as energy or fertilizer (Kendall, 2000).