Under the Swedish Presidency of the European Union

Summary of the conference

Climate Smart Food, 23-24 November 2009 in Lund, Sweden

under the Swedish Presidency of the European Union

Moderator: Claes Sjöberg

The presentations and videos from the conference can be found at

Introduction

Eskil Erlandsson, Minister for Agriculture

The conditions for agriculture are largely dependent on the climate, and conversely, agriculture affects the climate through greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, agriculture is also part of the solution to the climate change issue, as they produce renewable energy and deliver ecosystem services. (However, biofuel from agriculture was not the topic for this conference.)

Agriculture will have to work with both adaptation and mitigation. The agricultural sector will have to reduce farm level GHG, develop fuel energy and carry out research. Results from research have to be communicated to farmers. New tools for mitigation of emissions from agriculture will have to be introduced.

Trade is vital to developing countries. How can we reduce GHG emissions without compromising free trade?

Waste is loss of edible food. Little is known about how much is lost, but we have to reduce waste through e.g. smart packaging and cooperation along the food chain.

Consumers influence corporate behaviour. Retail and food producers have to tackle new demands – today, there is little information on climate footprint available to the consumer.

Abrupt global environmental change – what’s on the menu to solve the

challenges?

Johan Rockström, Professor in Natural Resource Management at Stockholm University and Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SEI)

The globe is subject to a quadrupled squeeze:

• Human growth 20/80 dilemma (~ a growing global population with a growing demand for development, while available resources still are unequally allocated)
• Climate 550/450/350 dilemma (~ the levels of concentrations (in ppm) of GHG that will contain the rise in global mean temperature to 2 °C – levels reconsidered: recent science indicates 350 ppm)
• Ecosystems 60 % loss dilemma (~ the high rate of loss of biodiversity eco-services and eroding regulatory capacity of ecosystems - 60 % of the global ecosystems have already collapsed)
• Surprise 99/1 dilemma (~ eco-systems do not behave incrementally and linearly, but multiple-stable states, separated by thresholds, where small triggers can result in abrupt and very fast change).

On top on this, we have to meet the global food challenge through a triple “green revolution” is needed: two to three times as much food will be requested, social-ecological resilience will have to be established and green water[1] management maintained.

Indicators for different environmental impact categories versus human well being indicators all show the same well established “hockey stick pattern”, with accelerated negative trends over the past 50 years. Regarding climate change, knowledge is dynamic and changes, with one trend line: we are heading towards a more risky, more dangerous situation than previously thought. As an example, the risk for large scale discontinuities (such as destabilisations of large eco-systems) according to IPCC in 2001 would occur at a rise in global temperature between 4 and 5 degrees, while later science indicate that the this risk occurs already between a 3 – 4 degrees rise in temperature.

Land based ecosystems are a net sink of GHG. However, agriculture is a net source of GHG: 30 % of GHG comes from land use related activities, out of which 14 % (estimate) represents crop production. Oceans and land absorb half of our carbon dioxide emissions. Agriculture is putting pressure on this buffering capacity through expansion of land and unsustainable use.

In a recently published article in Nature, “A safe operating space for humanity”, Rockström et al have explored nine planetary boundaries and identified thresholds within which humanity does not risk causing unstable and irreversible environmental changes, and they estimate that three planetary boundaries have already been trespassed: climatechange, rate of biodiversity loss, and changes to the global nitrogen cycle.

On the “menu” for world food production until 2050, there are several challenges:

1. Stay within 350 ppm, an agricultural system that goes from being a source to a global sink
2. Essentially a green revolution on current cropland (expansion from 12 % to maximum 15 %)
3. Keep global consumptive use of blue water < 4000 km3/year (we are at 2600 km3/year today, rushing towards 4000 km3/year)
4. Reduce to 25% of current nitrogen extraction from the atmosphere (today we extract as much nitrogen from the atmosphere into agriculture as the whole natural nitrogen cycle total in the atmosphere)
5. Not increase phosphorous inflows to oceans
6. Reduce loss of biodiversity to < 10 E/MSY[2] from current 100 – 1000 E/MSY

During the Q&A session, Johan was asked about his expectations from the Copenhagen climate conference. The somewhat contradictory answer was that, despite his pessimism, there is reason for optimism, since it is so clear that what has been “on the table” for negotiations for so long deviates from scientific necessity that it will be better to have no agreement at all than a bad agreement. On the other hand we are running out of time: we do not have time to wait for value changes or new economic paradises, and the necessary transformation that we have in front of us exceeds the industrial revolution, furthermore in a shorter period of time. But, as a parallel, the Montreal protocol, that was signed about 20 years ago, has resulted in an almost complete abolishment of ozone depleting substances, although it was not signed by more than 40 nations from the start – but this will need very major leadership among a few.

Global trends, challenges and food security – an FAO perspective

Johan Kuylenstierna, Chief Technical Advisor to the Chair, UN Water, FAO

Johan Kuylenstierna started by citing an article in The Economist from the 11 September 2008, where the authors stress that agriculture need to make major adaptation to deal with climate change, in particular in already vulnerable areas, such as Africa and Asia. Farmers have adapted, but what has been pointed out by Johan Rockström is a completely new situation.

The FAO mandate is mainly to defeat hunger, act as a neutral forum to negotiate agreements and debate policy and source of knowledge and information. When decision making organisation, such as FAO, use scientific results about e.g. precipitation scenarios, the answers can be very contradictory. In Australia, precipitation has increased as a whole, however the north-western part is wetter, but in south-east, where most of the agriculture takes place, have become much dryer. Population, urbanisation, energy, land and water resources, consumption patterns and markets are drivers for food security issues all linked to climate change. In 2050, global population will reach 9-11 billion people, food production will have to increase by 70%. There is a need for economic development to fight under-nourishment, but also to be able to provide resources for necessary investment. Crop yield will have to increase, and the efficiency from fork tor farm will have to increase. There will probably be less land for agriculture in developed countries, while more land is needed in developing countries. Two major conferences, to mobilise on high political level, have been organised by FAO in the last two years, one of which last week. However, the outcome was not as far reaching as expected; we were hoping to see more commitments on investments and actions, also from individual countries.

During the Q&A session, Johan was asked about whether last year’s rise in food prices were due to the increasing demand for bio fuel, to which he answered that there is no single and simple answer. Food and energy prices usually follow each other. However, the increasing demand for fuel, also bio fuel, is a double driver to food prices, since production costs increase, and so does the interest for producing bio fuels. There is a risk for increasing competition between food and bio fuel, and we will have to prioritise and increase efficiency in agriculture.

Climate Smart Food - A business chain perspective from Tetra Laval

Finn Rausing, member of the Tetra Laval Group Board

As a general remark at the outset, Mr Rausing declared that, to achieve a full effect of any action thatthe Tetra Laval as an individual companytakes on eco-efficiency and climate change will require concerted effort by all stakeholders in the business chain. That means team work between our business stakeholders and policy makers, both inside and outside Europe. It is clear to us that private and public sectors have different and distinctive roles, and need to complement and support each other if society is to make an efficient transition towards a low carbon economy.

Tetra Laval, a world market leader supplier to dairy farming and the dairy industry, provide state of the art technical solutions and business services to every phase in the dairy chain. The dairy sector is well positioned to address the preferences of consumers for sustainable products. In addition to its climate commitments, it offers products essential to nutrition, health and sustainable lifestyles. Tetra Laval will perform their share in reducing climate impact and increase eco-efficiency in the food service that they serve and further reduce the impact of their own operations. They will continue to offer their customers cost- and eco-efficient minimum impact solutions.

Policy makers have a key role in making climate smart option happen. Business needs clear and predictive legislation, across the European market and outside it. A key pillar for such legislation is that it should encourage joint stakeholder initiative in the private sector. Furthermore, it should counteract national legislation that risks creating trade barriers and adding new costs – a free international market for packaged products is vital, and eco-efficiency and open markets are not competing or contradictory forces.

Finally, Mr Rausing urged the meeting to discuss climate smart food in the context of food safety, nutritional value and health that reflects consumers’ every day requirements – the consumer is, after all, the end decision maker.

When asked about Tetra Lavals role for the increasing use of less climate smart packaging solutions for yoghurt in Sweden, Mr Rausing referred to the customer and assured that he would like to convince them to change to a climate better alternative.

Food and sustainable development

Mikael Karlsson, Ph.D. Environmental and Energy Systems, President European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

Mikael Karlsson started out by asking to keep in mind that environment is more than climate and cited the”Millenium Ecosystem Assessment”, commissioned by the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, focuses on eco-systems’ services supporting provision and regulating cultural and how they contribute to our well-being. The better total environment we manage conserve eco-system services, the better we can conserve our freedom of choice. However, 60 % of ecosystem source are degraded or used unsustainably that will eventually. Organic farming has proved to reduce system level better in terms of eutrophication, bio-diversity. None of the two system have done a good enough … Agriculture contributes to culture we consider desirable –

Agrifood is also affected by climate change, and the impact from climate change on food security is devastating: according to a recent report from the International Food Policy Research Institute, the decline in calorie availability will, by 2050, increase child malnutrition by 20 % relative to a world with no climate change. Already poor populations will be even more vulnerable by climate change – the links between agrifood, climate change and development are clear. But sustainable developmentis not the same thing sustainability: the more than a billion persons that suffer from hunger will be the first victims of climate change. Food security is determined by community resilience, human capabilities and livelihood capacity, and they have to be considered in combination when finding the right solutions and measures to food security. But these solutions are also dependant on incentives, instruments and conditions on a global level such as democracy and human rights, trade policies, global environmental change and agricultural polices. The CAP, for instance, is still subsidising structures that contribute to starvation.

One of the fundamentals for environmental policies is the polluter pays principle: we have to phase out unsustainable subsidies (today, we pay tax money for doing things worse) and can not leave to the public to “save the world”. Regulation, public procurement and voluntary measures are other pillars. Climate change must be limited to 2 C (maximum 400 ppm CO2-equivalents) and through equal per-capita emissions, substantial increases in financial and technical support (there are important technological and systematic opportunities at negative costs), increased efficiency and use of renewable energy from sources fulfilling strict criteria – long-term emissions must guide the path. To single out climate as the only criteria for labelling is risking increased environmental impact on other areas, which also might strike back on the climate label.

Agriculture and trade policies can promote or prevent sustainable development. Several trade treaties undermine global development. Sustainability impact analysis should be a prerequisite and must be followed before further trade liberalisation takes place. Environmental treaties must not be blocked by trade treaties. In agriculture, environmental costs must be internalised and production of public environmental goods be subsidised. Export subsidies should be phased out and the EU must allow developing countries to use special protective mechanisms and must decrease escalating tolls.

When Mikael was asked about his negative stand against climate labelling, he pointed out that the consumer will be confused and that the climate dimension has to be improved in existing environmental labels instead. The question on how to proceed on internalising costs for inducing climate change, Mikael suggested CO2-tax (in place in Sweden), to take out subsidies taxes on nitrogen fertilizers and, talking about food, to differentiate VAT levels according to some kind of GHG emission model. Shifting tax base is another track: the EEB advocates 10 % green fiscal reforms throughout Europe (less tax onjob, employ and income but higher on e.g. energy), preserving revenue neutrality in the national budgets.

Climate policies with imperfect climate treaties

Mads Greaker, Head of research, Section for Economic Growth and the Environment, Research Department, Statistics Norway/University of Gothenburg

Mats addressed the issue of how, and if, to put in place new GHG reducing policies in a system that is part of an imperfect climate treaty. The Kyoto protocol is such an imperfect treaty, since it is incomplete (only emission reduction targets for so called Annex I countries) and the emission targets are insufficient.

Climate change is a global environmental problem and that policies must therefore be comprehensive and reductions carried out where abatement costs are low. Since climate change is so intimately linked to economic growth, policies must spur technological development. There are several problems caused by imperfect climate treaties: deviation from cost efficiency, carbon leakage (through GHG reduction efforts resulting in increased emissions elsewhere or through decreasing prices on fossil fuels from decreasing demand on fossil fuels), inefficient distribution of global emission reductions over time (measures today may be more cost efficient than those tomorrow, even if they exceed the short time goal) and inefficient incentives for technological development (due to uncertainty on future climate policies). For several reasons, individual nations may want to reduce global emissions more than current imperfect treaties. One way is to buy international emission rights or CDMs and not use them (or carry out emission reductions in non-Annex I countries not qualifying as CDMs). Another way is to put a higher national emission target and/or put higher domestic than international price on emissions – it may lead to carbon leakage, but it may also serve as a good example and spur technical development.

When asked about a piece of advice for food industry, Mats suggested that, since consumers obviously want to do more to reduce climate impact, industry should explore this as a business opportunity and make use of third party certification schemes to keep credibility. A global treaty is to hope for too much, but a large treaty, with the same price on emissions for nearly all sectors would be the most efficient global emission reduction instrument. Mats did not advocate reduced VAT on climate smart products, because it would not contribute to emission reductions.

Food production and emissions of greenhouse gases

Ulf Sonesson, Ph.D. Department of Sustainable Food Production, SIK The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology