Monitoring adoption of climate technologies in the agrifood sector Investment opportunities for GHG emissions reduction in Morocco GBEP Bioenergy Week Budapest 22 June 2016
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)
4 step methodology Identify the most relevant GHG Target agri-food activities 1 emission sources in the agri-food that emit most GHGs chain and ascertain trends Put the stage of technology development into context Ascertain the maturity of 2 Produce marginal abatment cost technologies/practices and curves their costs and potentials Assess technical and market aspects Consider any trade-offs such as Identify any sustainability 3 within the water/energy/food issues nexus and adaptation benefits Assess market penetration vis- à - Identify key factors 4 vis policies. Confirm most suitable hindering market uptake technologies/practices. Identify drivers to support Identify technologies/ adoption of practices with significant technologies/practices potential
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?
Step 1 – Sources of GHG emissions
Step 1 – GHG Emitting Activities Analysis 1 of 3 - ‘ Agrifood ’ Emissions ( including energy) FAOSTAT + UNSD FAOSTAT + UNSD + NATIONAL GHG Year 2012 EMISSIONS INVENTORY + 3 EME COMMUNICATION NATIONALE + IEA FOR ELECTRICITY DATA + OUR ESTIMATIONS FROM THE NATIONAL ACCOUNTS ON GHG EMISSIONS FROM THE FOOD INDUSTRY Total: 23.4 Livestock emissions important(as in MtCO 2 eq 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)
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.
Step 1 – GHG Emitting Activities Analysis 3 of 3 – Emissions Intensity Based on FAOSTAT, 2015 in accordance with the 2006 IPCC guidelines
Step 1 – GHG Emitting Activities Results 18% of the total with an increasing trend (+150% since 2000). The MANURE intensity of GHG emissions from bovine animals is high MANAGEMENT ‘ Only ’ 24% with an upward trend (+18%). It contributes in an important MANURE LEFT ON manner to the high intensity of GHG emissions from bovine animals PASTURE Important part of emissions, similar to other countries in the region, ENERGY IN with upward trend until recently, followed by a slight decline AGRICULTURE ENERGY IN THE Strong upward trend FOOD INDUSTRY Important part of emissions (25%) as in other countries in the region. ENTERIC Emissions have increased slightly (+10%). Intensity of GHG emissions FERMENTATION from bovine animals is high The portion of emissions from the application of synthetic fertilizers SYNTHETIC similar to other countries in the region (5%) and is declining (-14%). FERTILIZERS However, fertilizer use is on the rise
Selected technologies • The methodology could consider other technologies based on the opportunities available
Step 2 – Techno-Economic Evaluation
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
Step 2 – Techno-Economic Evaluation Examples Criteria * ** *** Current technology adoption Technology market penetration The market for the technology The technology is in a growing rate or adoption of the practice is or adoption of the practice is phase but with market share high, leaving little space for mature but there is still space still much reduced. Few improvement. for marginal improvements and innovators have adopted the small increases (possibly with practice. reduced risk and limited profit). 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 - < -20 /tCO 2 -eq avoided eq avoided Data availability Indicators based on ad-hoc More disaggregated indicators: High-level indicators: data is surveys or research: data is data is sourced from a number normally sourced from collected in the field by of other sources, often of statistical offices or other inspection of installations, specialized nature, for example, official national or international undertaking surveys of from organizations that certify data sources and not always equipment suppliers, analysing boilers or associations that easily disaggregated to the financial investments, etc. import tractors. required level of detail.
Step 2 - Techno-Economic Evaluation Conservation Agriculture Technical Evaluation Market Evaluation ** *** Performance compared with international best practice Current technology adoption rate Maturity of technical support services ** Trends in gap between current technology uptake and ** technical potential *** Potential to reduce annual GHG emissions Economic Evaluation • Not applied in all dimensions therefore a part of its potential to reduce GHG emissions has not been *** Financial attractiveness realised • Support services for this technology are still limited Mitigation cost ** • 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 ** Data Availability • 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
Step 2 – Techno-Economic Evaluation Results Technical Evaluation Market Evaluation Economic Evaluation Disponibilité Evaluation technique Evaluation du marché Evaluation économique des données Performance Maturity of Potential to Current Trends in gap Financial Mitigation cost Data availability compared with technical reduce annual technology between uptake attractiveness international support GHG emissions adoption rate potential Technologies best practice services 10% 10% 15% 10% 15% 15% 20% 5% Conservation agriculture ** ** *** *** *** *** ** ** Efficient field machinery *** ** * *** *** *** *** * Drip irrigation ** ** * ** ** *** *** * Solar/wind power for water *** ** ** *** ** *** *** * pumping Grazing management *** ** ** *** *** * * * Manure as soil amendment *** ** ** *** *** * * * Livestock dairy breeds on ** ** * ** ** *** *** ** improved diets Efficient water boilers ** ** * ** ** ** *** * Efficient cold storage *** *** * ** *** *** *** * Biogas from manure and agri- ** * ** *** *** * * ** residues Renewable energy systems *** *** ** *** ** * ** ** Small dams ** ** * *** ** * * **
Step 2 – Techno-Economic Evaluation Results
Step 2 – Techno-Economic Evaluation M itigation cost and technical GHG mitigation potential 50 30 10 0.1 0.6 1.1 9.9 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 -10 Mitigation Cost (USD/tCO2eq) -30 -50 -70 -90 Efficient field machinery Efficient cold storage Solar/wind power for water pumping -110 Livestock dairy breeds on improved diets Drip irrigation Conservation agriculture Renewable energy systems Grazing management Manure as soil amendment -130 Biogas from manure and agri-residues Small dams Efficient water boilers Cumulative technical mitigation potential (MtCO2eq/year) -150
Step 2 – Techno-Economic Evaluation With other financial and technical criteria Higher Techno-economic efficiency rating 100.0 Lower Mitigation cost (USD/tonCO2eq) Manure as soil amendment 50.0 Small dams Biogas Grazing management 0.0 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 Renewable energy Conservation Water boilers agriculture -50.0 Drip irrigation Livestock breeds and diets Solar/wind water pumps Cold storage -100.0 -150.0 Field machinery -200.0 Size of bubbles proportional to mitigation potential (MtCO2eq/year)
Step 3 – Evaluating sustainability issues
Recommend
More recommend
