DIIS ∙ DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Organic farming in LICsExploring how far Certified Or ganic Agriculture

(COA) equals pro -poor & low carbon development?

Dr. Henrik Egelyng, Senior Project Researcher, DIIS

Marie Trydeman Knudsen, Ph.d. student, KU.

Presentation made on January 13th to a DIIS Main Auditorium seminar on LOW CARBON DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION IN LOW INCOME COUNTRIES – Opportunities

and Challenges for Development Assistance

Consumer Concerns

Is “certified organic agriculture”

(COA) also climate friendly?

Has COA low carbon footprint

even if tropical origin?

Trust pro-poor means food-

mile-intense also for convential

tropicals?

Governance (and donor) Concerns

If adopted large scale, how far would COA save energ y & lower CO2 emissions?

Any reduced productivit y (money/calories) for

GNP/Green GNP?

What is COA an yway ?

Basic FactsAgricultures share of global GHG emissions varies between

17 % to 32 %, depending on whether synthetic fertilizer is included !

� GHG effect of Meth ane (CH4) >20 times that of CO2. � GHG effect of n itrous oxide (N2O) near 300 times th at of CO2.

SO:

Livestock indeed source of GHG, but so is commercial fertilizer (polluting with nitrous oxides) – which is why much depends on & soil management, which is at the heart of COA rules of the game!

GLOBALORG Cases in Progress

CHINA data collection

Shenyang

Dalian

32 organic farms

18 conventional

CHINA

�LCA data collection for Soya

Farming system

/ Cultivation

transport

Processing plant

transport

Packaging Consumer

transport

Fertilizer production

etc.

transport

See also www.globalorg.dk

7.4 Paper: Life cycle assessment of organic and conventional soybean

imported from China to Denmark

Global Warming Potential, GWP(g CO2 equivalents per kg soybean, any xtra C. Seq. From COA not included)

Approx. 70% of GWP from farm level (mainly due to N2O) and 30% from transportation.

COA Climate Lesson (SIC): energy efficient at system level ….

…, but at crop level some significant exceptions .

Gomiero et al 2008

#1 Meta-Analytical Point(s).

� While COA performs better than conventional farming in terms of energy efficiency when measured in hectares, performance per ton of product tend to be equal (Northern ag).

� Under dry conditions or water constraints, COA tend to outperform conventional agriculture in terms of (smaller) GWP.

FAO 2008: Conversion to COA => 1/3 less nitrous oxide (N20).

Further 20% organic = may save 770 MtCO2-eq/yr by 2030 (Smith et al, in Gomero et al ).

To design institutions & policy regimes, we need not wait for the “perfect” global comparative study

Fortunately, its not important whether a universal “aggregate” abstraction of “COA” compared to “Conventional” sequesters more carbon in soils/emits the less CO2.

The worlds diversity of conventional and organic systems ensures that analysts will hardly ever agree on one “truth”. Depending on methodology (carbon sequestration and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer included or not) and sample (one or few crops or whole farming system) resu lts will continue to differ.

What matters is the Climate Change Dynamics: Poor crop rotation, loss of soil organic matter (SOM), over-intensive livestock operations, – and all the other un-sustainable practices that methods such as COA address.

Why COA is “low carbon” & useful in adaption.

� While COA avoids synthetic fertilizer, statistics often count emissions from energy conventional agriculture uses to produce syntheti c fertilizer, as ”industry”.

� Counting synthetic fertilizer as “agricultural” puts COA in focus as “low carbon” with no synthetic N, low on P and K and no synthetic pesticides and herbicides.

� Adaption & resilience potential, because COA has lower long term yield variability and higher cropping syst em stability, mainly due to higher water holding capacity (up to +100%) of soils under organic management.

Technology-options (COA can reduce emissions, add sequestration).

� Biogas - potential for reduction in emissions from liquid manure.

� Nitrous oxide emissions can be reduced by reducing use of nitrogen fertilizers or evap oration and leaks.

� Reduced tilling & returning residues can turn carbon loss to carbon sink

� Less drainage of rich soils, increases CO2 storage.

� COA provides soil fertility/restoration of degraded soils through crop rotation, intercropping, polyculture, cover crops, mulching(while conventional accelerate SOM oxidation=erosion=applicationof N).

� COA provides pest control through cropping techniques including beneficial insects (i.e. conserve and use biodiversity).

ConclusionYes, COA has pro -poor and low carbon

potential, but:

“To move agricult ure towards a more sustainable path [] require society t o change its paradigms, our view of “development” and value accounting system” (Gomeiro et al. 2008. Critical Reviews in

Plant Sciences, 27:4, 239 -254).

No Escape from EcoTax Reform

Source of figure: UNCTAD & Fi BL 2008

Ag-Policy Carbon Governance

Eco-Tax reforms creating economic incentives for consumers to change consumption patterns towa rds:

– Less meat, milk, egg.

– More flour, vegetables.

Tax levels (also in LICs !) designed to reflect levels of climate disruption potential (CO2 equivalents/year).

• Red meat (1,47 ), Cheese (0,84), Pork (0,46), Ch icken (0, 41)

• Egg (0,31), Rye bread (0,09 ), Potato (0,06), Wheat-flour (0,08)

See Consumer Options as Tax (Revenue) Potential

Eat Less meat, milk, egg.Eat More flour, vegetables.Eat local, tax carbon

footprintEat in-seasonCO2 savings account?Even more food labels, a dding to the

zoo the world already has –Denmark alone has around a hundred.

Taxbreaks for local ly produced and certified “organic” biogas for local use in livestock reg ions?

Int´l Donor Options

� Promote Ecotax reforms – and multifunctional agriculture, including certified agroforesty/ permaculture/ organicagriculture also in LIC and developing countries.

� Policies to reward climate friendly livelihoods choices = pro poor.

� Cf. also Island Press 2009 and Egelyng et al. 2008.

Dangers of skipping complexity of dealing with paradigmatic change

� Cost Shifting*

� Problem Swapping

� Pollution Swapping

* From unacknowledged trade-offs, such as in biofuels.

Sources and References

� Egelyng et al. 2008

� FAO. 2008. Low Greenhouse Gas Agriculture: Mitigation and adaptation potential of sustainable farming systems.

� Gomiero, T. et al. 2008. Energy and Environmental Issues in Organic and Conventional Agriculture, CRiPS 27:4, 239 — 254, Ithaca, New York, USA.

� ITC, UNCTAD/WTO, FiBL. 2007. Organic Farming and Climate Change . Geneva: ITC, Doc. No. MDS-08-152.E

� International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,

� Journal of Cleaner Production or Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.

� Kotschi, J and Müller-Sämann K. 2004. The role of organic agriculture in mitigating climate change –a scoping study. IFOAM. Bonn.

� moMentum Nr. 4. 2008. Jord og Viden Tema.

� Izac, A-M., Egelyng et al. In Watson et al. 2009.

� Edwards-Jones G, Plassmann K, York E.H. Hounsome B., Jones D.L., Mila` i Canals L. (2008). Vulnerability of exporting nations to the development of a carbon label in the United Kingdom, Environmental Science and Policy and abstract

Thank You

www.Globalorg.dk

DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Paradigm change - too complex?

National accounting fail measuring environmental services of COA, floral and faunal (above & below ground) biodiversity, landscape & water quality, pollution, & energy savings.

Organic farmers – and their “bio-diversity”produce unpaid work: non-market values for our long term common good, yet under-compensated by finance ministers.

Too complex – continued…

� Sustainable agriculture depends on natural capitals, many of which kept out from “conventional” equations: pollinators and the multiplicity of (above and below ground) organisms that may keep soil fertility, recycle organic materials and provide biocontrol of pests and pathogens.

� Systems of indicators limited to mon etary value per area/hour unit fails to understand the multiple functions of biodiversity and the environment.

� Potential to reduce GWP through (re)integration of crop and livestock production, may be incompletely reflected in most GWP models.

� Even biophysical measures such as energy efficiency per product unit are severely limited reflection s of the organisms and processes involved in producing environmental services and ecological sustainability.

� To really measure sustainable development values of any agricultural system, multiple criteria and indicators are requ ired. Only comparisons in parallel and across scales, can allow for a truth-seeking picture of extent to which whole systems are mu ltifunctional, and how.

More complexity, so little time …

� While soils can be nourished by use of leguminous plants (to supply a volume far beyond fossil fuel based fertilizers (Niggli et al 2007, page 10) conventional farming under -exploit this source of N.

� In COA, ban on mineral nitrogen and reduced livestock units per hectare reduce concentration of easy available mineral nitrogen's in soils and thus reduce N2O emissions.

� COA further minimize nitrous oxide emissions by diversified crop rotations (including green manure) creating aeration and optimum soil structure.

Why COA is the Winning Game, measured in Development Value and Policy Realism.

� COA is second best to system wide eco-tax reforms and enforced environmental regulation. While we await such reforms, second best is a real and operational policy option. Among the various agricultural systems making claims to environmental friendliness and sustainability, few other than COA are regul ated by laws and required to meet publicly policy controlled and transparent standards.

� Reduced availability of cheap energy from fossil fuels creates urge for more ecologically sustainable agriculture, anyway.

� Developing countries already contribute to a more carbon neutral world and show how low carbon technologies contribute to development.

� Watson et al 2009 recommends the promotion of (institutions to strengthen) multifunctional agriculture – including agroforestry and organic agriculture – to provide food security in environmentally sustainable ways. ”By-products”of COA include: savings from avoiding synthetic agro-chemicals, conservation of soil fertility, biodiversity and water. Thus, while performance of COA vary with crop patterns and farm characteristics (Apples, Potatoes – horticultural crops, R&D hang back), even in cases where Carbon impact are no better for COA compared to Conventional agriculture, COA may perform better on other counts, besides energy saving. Agroforestry, COA and Permaculture does not only produce commodities, but strengthen environmentally and socially sustainable food systems – may even help buffer (protected) nature areas.

Farming system

/ Cultivation

transport

Processing plant

transport

Packaging Supermarket

transport

Emissions to air (CO2, NH3, denitrification etc.)

Emissions to soil and water (NO3-, pesticides ect.)

INPUT

Materials

Organic fertilizer

Mineral fertilizer

N2 fixation

Precipitation, deposition

Seeds or seedlings

Energy

Fuel (diesel/alcohol)

Natural gas

Electricity

Chemicals

Pesticides

Cleaning substances

Other

Land use

Water use

OUTPUT

Crop yield

Meat and milk yield

Residues or co-productTotal area and cultivated area

Soil type, altitude and climate

Density of plants

Cultivated varieties

Crop and harvest management types

Number of employees

Compost production

etc.

transport

FARM

Ideals of modelling complexity

Reality: few comparative true system studies.

To fully document comparative performances of conventional vs. organic agriculture in terms of direct & indirect GHG emission s, including energy efficiency, remains a high aim – reality is often modest, single crops comparisons rather than multifunctionality of systems. Common denominators needed, but total LCA & Carbon Footprints Xtremely complex.

Soil degradation, - although unsustainable soil management really cost the US society, for instance, 44 billion annually (according to Pimentel 1995), meaning major benefit escapes US society each year, due to dysfunctional soil management.

Water consumption, biodiversity losses, environmental quality losses, decontamination, whole GHG emission s long distance versus local

Emergy and Ecological Footprint (biocapacity), since analyses are very complex and thus expensive.

More Policy Options

� Tax all foodmiles, not only South North (revenue going North), but North-South (revenue going South) !

� Tax carbon footprints (also so that revenue go South)

� There is no mechanism to reverse burning of fossil fuels, but tax on emergy perhaps not feasible.

� Incentives to introduce ”natural hydrology” where currently drained, as soil stability (water retention) will become crucial .

� Reward cropland carbon sequestration, but as temporary solution until ecotax reform. Which incentives to optimize ”Green Carbon Storage”?