Food and Climate Change

1
Food and Climate Change

• The world on a plate
• Tara Garnett
• Food Climate Research Network

2
This presentation

• Climate change an overview
• Food its contribution to climate changing
  emissions by life cycle food type
• Specific issues transport, refrigeration, waste,
  health
• Climate change its impact on food supply chains
• How might we reduce food chain emissions?
• Whats going on? Government industry
• Observations conclusions
• About the Food Climate Research Network

3
1. Climate change an overview
4
The facts

• Latest (2007) IPCC report
• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
• Most of the observed increase in globally
  averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century
  is very likely over 90 certainty due to the
  observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
  concentrations

5
Climate change

• Temperature increase of 0.74ºC in last 100 years
• 11 of last 12 years have been the warmest on
  record
• Warming of oceans
• Faster than average warming in Arctic

6
What is more

• Under BAU temperatures to rise by about 3C by
  2100 (range 2 to 4.5C ).
• 2C rise dangerous climate change
• Were already committed to 1C rise even if we
  stop producing any more GHGs right now.
• We need to achieve 80 not 60 cuts by 2050
• UK not meeting our CO2 reduction targets
• Will EU meet its 2012 Kyoto target (8 cut)?

7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Defining terms

• GHGs greenhouse gas emissions
• CO2 the main GHG but
• others also important especially for food
• Methane 23 x greater global warming potential
  than CO2
• Nitrous oxide 296 x greater global warming
  potential than CO2
• Refrigerant gases thousands of times greater than
  CO2

10
2. Overall food related GHG emissions
11
Need to consider emissions at all stages

• Need to consider emissions at all stages in the
  food chain
• Agriculture
• Manufacturing
• Refrigeration
• Transport
• Packaging
• Retail
• Home
• Waste
• They all affect one another

12
A typical food LCA diagram
Source http//www-mat21.slu.se/publikation/pdf/Pr
ogramplan2004.pdf
13
Overall food-related contribution to GHG
emissions

• EU EIPRO report 31 all EU consumption related
  GHGs
• FCRN UK estimates around 19 (probably an
  underestimate) - Defra estimates similar
• World agriculture contribution 17 - 32 total
  global emissions
• Huge uncertainty / variability between countries
  / differences in whats included and whats not

14
UK GHG emissions how does food contribute?
FCRN work in progress 2007
15
The GHG hotspots vary by food

• Agriculture Meat dairy glasshouse veg
• Manufacture Bread baking
• Storage Frozen peas or potatoes
• Transport Anything airfreighted eg. berries
• Cooking Baked potato, pasta, tea, coffee
• Packaging Small bottle of beer
• Waste Fruit veg

16
And there are real difficulties drawing meaning
from your measurements

• For example
• Relative contribution Eg. Banana transport
  emissions greater than strawberries since we eat
  more of them but flown-in strawberries are more
  GHG intensive by volume. Policy implications?
• Specific behaviour farmer, consumer huge
  variations How do you address this?
• Whats the functional unit? Emissions per KG? vit
  C? pleasure? What do you want to achieve?
• System boundaries Farm machinery? How employee
  travelled to work? When does food end and
  everything else begin?
• The existing infrastructure eg. Refrigeration
  If the fridge is on whether the peas are in there
  or not can we really attribute refrigeration
  emissions to those peas? And what does it mean
  for the consumer?

17
Impacts by food type FCRN work so far

• Meat and dairy about 8
• Fruit and veg - about 2.5
• Alcoholic drinks about 1.5
• This is of the UKs TOTAL GHG emissions
• Similar to this Dutch study

18
Klaas Jan Kramer, Henri C Moll, Sanderine
Nonhebel, Harry C Wilting, Greenhouse gas
emissions related to Dutch food consumption,
Energy Policy 27 (1999) 203-216, Elsevier
Publications
19
Food impacts by type Fruit vegetables

• GHG contributions approx 2.5 total
• Trends increasing consumption of GHG intensive
  produce
• Air freighted
• Unseasonal protected
• Pre-prepared
• Fragile / spoilable

20
Key impact areas

• Transport
• 1.5 fv air freighted, accounting for 40 50
  total fv transport emissions
• Air freight growing rapidly
• Refrigeration
• from post harvest ? home
• Trade offs AND synergies with transport
• Waste
• Approx 25 fruit and veg wasted most at
  domestic stage
• Supply chain demands make waste inevitable

21
Less GHG intensive produce

• Seasonal and field grown no heating fewer
  tradeoffs
• Robust (less need for rapid transport, less prone
  to waste, less temp critical?)

22
Food impacts by type Alcoholic drinks

• Contributes around 1.5 UK total
• Not much difference between types
• Hotspots hospitality sector, transport,
  packaging
• Lack of data

23
Relative contribution of stages to beer emissions
(draft packaged)
24
Relative contribution of stages to wine emissions
25
Relative contribution of stages to spirit
emissions
26
Trends

• More wine relative importance of transport to
  grow?
• More chilled cold lagers, cider over ice,
  chilled wine, spirit mixers
• More in-home more single serve packages
• Hospitality sector??
• More drinking

27
Scope for reduction?

• Brewing / distilling progress being made
• Packaging lightweighting (but little recycling
  from pubs etc.)
• Hospitality sector no policy focus here yet (but
  this is changing more later)
• Consumption adherence to Dept of Health recs
  would lead to 18 reduction in consumption. BUT
• Rebound effect
• International trade

28
Food impacts by type Meat dairy

• Global 18 global emissions (FAO 2006)
• EU 15 EU emissions or 50 of all food impacts
  (EIPRO 2006)
• Dutch study 50 of all food impacts
• UK (from FCRN study)
• 6.6 production related GHG emissions (NETCEN
  other)
• 8 consumption emissions (Cranfield plus volumes
  based on MLC Defra)

29
Projected global trends in meat dairy demand
Poultry takes biggest share of growth
But per capita developing world demand still
lower than developed world (IFPRI 2001)
30
But

• We have to eat therell always be an impact
• Livestock production yields food and non food
  benefits they save having to produce them by
  other means
• Some livestock rearing utilises unproductive land
  by-products
• Would non-animal substitutes be any better for
  GHG emissions?

31
To understand why the impacts arise and
how/whether they can be reduced you need to look
at

• The inputs to the production system and GHG
  implications
• The outputs from the system and GHG implications

32
Different systems have different inputs outputs
33
Livestock system inputs

• What are the second order impacts eg. Lost carbon
  sequestration from land clearance?
• What is the opportunity cost could these inputs
  be used in other ways?

• Cereals How much? Alternative uses (food,
  biofuel)?
• Oilseeds Second order impacts? Relationship
  between cake and oil?
• Grazing land Inputs to? Alternative uses?
  Benefits of?
• By-products Alternative uses?
• Land Whats the best way of using the land for
  most output at least GHG cost?
• Energy on farm and indirect

34
Livestock system outputs

• Nutrition protein, calcium, iron, B12, fat
• Leather wool
• Rendered products glues, soaps, pet food
• Manure nutrients and soil quality
• Soil carbon sequestration
• Landscape aesthetics biodiversity

35
Questions

• What benefits do we gain from livestock
  production?
• Are these benefits accurately accounted for in
  life cycle analysis?
• How much do we need these products?
• (who defines need?)
• To what extent can we obtain these goods /
  services by non livestock means and what would
  the GHG implications be?

36
General conclusions on meat, dairy and nutrition

• Good source of calcium, iron Vit B12
• Not so important for protein
• Provides fat in excess
• Livestock products not essential
• But useful in small quantities esp. for
  vulnerable groups
• Different issues for rich in developed world and
  extremely poor in developing world

37
Non food benefits

• Leather useful byproducts but not needed at
  current levels (but developing world industries)
• Comes with own environmental downsides
• Wool v. small textile player
• Rendered products are we making the most
  efficient use of the carcass?

38
Manure

• Costs benefits
• Avoids need for mineral fertilisers (although
  harder to optimise input levels)
• Contributes to soil quality / carbon sequestering
  properties of soil
• Leads to methane and nitrous oxide emissions

39
Soil carbon sequestration, biodiversity
aesthetics (grazing land)

• Pasture land important for carbon sequestration
  biodiversity
• But 20 land degraded by overgrazing worldwide
  (73 in dry areas)
• Hence carbon losses and decline in biodiversity

40
Mitigation relative importance of different
gases - GWP
Source Williams AG (2007) per comm. Based on
Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. and Sandars, D.L.
(2006) Determining the environmental burdens and
resource use in the production of agricultural
and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra
Research Project IS0205.
41
Mitigation options

• Husbandry (feed, breed etc)
• Changing management (organic vs non organic,
  intensive vs extensive)
• Managing outputs (manure)
• Changing numbers

42
In the context of

• Framing issues Animal welfare, biodiversity,
  long term soil quality and soil carbon storage,
  rural economy
• Managing trade offs With other social /
  environmental concerns pollution swapping
• Land use Need to consider the opportunity cost
  of using land for one purpose over another

43
GHGS Foods with major impacts

• Meat and dairy
• 8 UK estimate
• 13.5 total EU GHG emissions (half of all food
  emissions) could we get our protein / iron /
  calcium / shoes /warm jumpers / glues in other
  ways?
• FAO estimates livestock 18 global GHG emissions
• Certain kinds of fruit and vegetables
• Veg diets not always better
• Unnecessary foods and drinks alcohol,
  beverages, confectionary
• Whose needs? Who defines them? (more later)

44
3. Specific issues Transport, refrigeration,
waste, health
45
Transport What about food miles?

• 2.5 3.5 of UK GHG emissions (incl imports)
• Is nearer better? It depends.
• There are trade-offs to consider
• Eg. agricultural production, manufacturing
  efficiency, energy mix, cold storage, waste
• On the other handrelationship between transport
  distance refrigeration, waste
• Structural impacts on economy and infrastructure
  investment
• Conflicting demands on land eg. biofuels. What
  should we use our land for?
• Answer now might be different to answer in 5
  10 years time

46
What about air freight?

• The most GHG intensive form of transport
• Less than 1 all food carried by air but 11
  total food transport CO2 (including car trips)
• 1.5 fruit and veg carried by air but accounts
  for 40 total fv transport CO2
• Kenyan green beans 20-26 times more GHG intensive
  than seasonal UK beans

47
Air freight continued.

• Absolute impacts small but in relative terms
  growing and it subsidises passenger air travel
• The greater the volume, the cheaper it is to fly
  food
• Food is the fastest growing air freighted
  commodity
• Might climate change increase use of air freight
  (variability of supply leads to more use of
  emergency top ups)?

48
Is air always the worst option?

• Sometimes other options can be more GHG
• intensive (eg. hothouse flowers in Feb from
• Holland compared with those from Kenya)
• BUT
• This doesnt meant that air freight is okay
• It just means that both have very high
• impacts!

49
Howeverair freight and developing countries

• Contribution of SSA countries to total non-EU
  fruit and veg air freighted imports
• Kenya 22
• S Africa 6
• Ghana 6
• Zimbabwe 3.6
• Of top 20 air freight importers by volume, almost
  all
• less developed countries
• 1-1.5 mill people dependent on export
  horticulture
• in SSA (up to 120,000 directly employed)
• Lives depend upon it some excellent projects
• Joined up Govt policy implication?

50
Food refrigeration GHGs
Embedded impacts from imports emissions from
mobile refrigeration not included. IF THEY
WERE....
51
Then overall refrigeration GHGs 3-3.5 of UK
total

• Total food related GHGs around 19-20
• Food refrigeration 17-18 all food GHGs

52
Reducing impactsHow far will technology get us?

• Savings between 20-50 possible
• Novel technologies eg. trigeneration
• Institutional inertia short term costing
• Policies in place / being developed
• Masses of advice

53
But we now live in a refrigeration dependent
society Why?

• Changes in foods drinks we buy
• Changes in how we live our lives
• Economic changes
• Weekly shopping
• Women
• Lifestyles
• Housing design/ temperatures
• Infrastructure development stimulates cold food
  manufacturing which stimulates infrastructure
  investment and reinforces behavioural norms

54
(No Transcript)
55
Future refrigeration trends?

• Some projections ? refrig. emissions set to
  decline. But
• A warming climate? More dependency
• New product innovation?
• product/technology/behaviour interface
• Cant look at refrigeration emissions alone
• Nexus of transport, packaging, retail and IT
  infrastructure within which refrigeration
  technology is situated.

56
In short

• Refrigeration as marker of unsustainable energy
  use?
• Nodal point of energy intensive
  practices/behaviours
• Policies need to tackle not just refrigeration
  energy use but refrigeration dependency

57
A less refrigeration dependent food chain

• Foods
• Less meat and dairy
• Fewer fragile foods
• More seasonal robust produce
• More frequent shopping / cooking patterns
• Optimum fridge size / level of infrastructure?
• Food safety / waste - issues more nuanced than at
  first
• appears.

58
Waste why is it a problem for food GHGs?

• Decomposing food generates methane (small
  problem)
• Wasted food represents a waste of all the
  emissions generated during the course of growing,
  processing, storing, transporting, retailing and
  cooking the food. (BIG PROBLEM)
• Around1/3 food we eat is thrown away, most of it
  edible.

59
The most wasted foods

• Top 5 waste categories fruit and veg, meat and
  fish, bakery, dairy, rice and pasta
• High waste foods mostly also GHG intensive
• Most waste occurs at household stage once food
  has embedded upstream GHG emissions
• BUT
• If we waste less will we buy less? Will farmers
  grow less? Will supermarkets sell less food
  but more GHG intensive? Or energy using non food
  products? Will we export more / import less?
  What are the policy implications? What action is
  needed?

60
What about organic?

• Many benefits to organic
• Long term soil quality
• Biodiversity
• But its not always less GHG intensive
• Eg. Poultry
• ALTHOUGH it sometimes is!
• So how do you act consistently?

61
Is healthy food less GHG intensive?

• It depends

62
(No Transcript)
63
Two balanced mealsA ninefold GHG difference
Production of meal on the left is nine times less
GHG intensive than the one on the right
Carlsson-Kanyama A (1998) Climate change and
dietary choices - how can emissions of greenhouse
gases from food consumption be reduced? Food
Policy, vol 23, no.3/4, pp.277-293
64
4. Impact of climate change on the food system
65
Impacts on agriculture

• Huge uncertainty... Impacts depend on
• Interplay between
• Gradual temperature increase
• CO2 effect
• Wildcards (extreme drought, flooding)
• Water
• Economics, demographics, infrastructure

66
Impacts continued...

• May be positive in N. Countries up to 2050 - then
  negative
• Poor countries negative and then more negative
• Changes in crop suitability
• Crop and livestock diseases
• Water
• Poor will suffer most

67
The picture by 2050
Source IPCC 2004 Wkg Gp II Ch5
68
Climate change knock on effects

• If current sources no longer viable need to
  source from elsewhere (further?)
• Increasing reliance on emergency top ups (by
  air)?
• Weather related spoilage / waste

69
Major commodity crops - impacts

• Wheat North South divide
• Rice water shortages
• Cocoa W. Africa threat from drought
• Coffee more vulnerable
• Wine grapes water? Quality?
• Cane sugar water
• Increased developing world dependence on imports
  from developed world

70
Post harvest impacts

• Food sourcing, processing and distribution
• Disruptions to transport stationary
  infrastructure
• Unpredictability can lead to crop spoilage
  waste
• Changes in sourcing decisions?
• More imports to developing world
• Consumption
• Changes in consumer demand?
• Consequences for food industry household energy
  use?
• Food safety problems?

71
The CC context

• Physical effects of CC need to be seen in social,
  economic, political, demographic and
  infrastructural context feedback interactions
• Climate change exacerbates existing
  vulnerabilities of poor in developing world
• The more rapid the climate change the harder it
  will be to adapt
• Poor farmers less likely to be able to adapt
  infrastructural, political, economic barriers

72
What might the impacts be for food supply?

• Current sources no longer viable?
• More variability of supply?
• Challenges for transport / distribution
  infrastructure
• The right sourcing answer from a GHG
  perspective depends on which part of the supply
  chain cleans up its act / adapts first
• Impact of legislation may be more important in
  the short term

73
5. Reducing foods GHG contribution
74
How far will technology get us?

• Agriculture plant breeding better nutrient use
  alternative fuel sources for greenhouses
• Manufacturing CHP / trigeneration /
  polygeneration / life cycle costing
• Refrigeration 20-50 efficiency savings
  possible novel technologies including non HFC
  refrigeration, trigeneration (increases
  efficiency from 38 to 76).
• Packaging lightweighting, alternative materials,
  ambient storage packaging

75
More technological options

• Transport modal shift, efficient supply chains
  cleaner fuels (in future years)
• Retailing massive scope for improvements in
  lighting and refrigeration renewables
• Domestic energy efficient appliances, visible
  energy metering
• Lots of little impacts/solutions rather than one
  big one

76
But

• Will this get us to an 80 cut by 2050?
• Technological improvements dont address the root
  problems of the way we consume
• And technology shapes behaviour, fostering new
  (energy dependent) norms
• Two examples

77
Eg.1 Ready meal vs home cooking

• Is the energy efficient ready meal the answer?
• No trimmings or scraps less waste
• Production stage scraps can be used for animal
  feed
• No packaging for individual ingredients
• More efficient industrial ovens
• Only transport what is eaten less transport
• Recent LCA showed little difference between home
  and ready-meal
• But complex multi-ingredient, elaborately
  prepared food
• reliant on long supply chains and refrigeration
  becomes the
• norm triggering further innovationsproblem
  exacerbated?

78
Eg. 2 Food waste how to reduce?

• Wasted food wasted CO2 CH4
• One third food bought is not eaten
• The technology approach? Improve packaging,
  portion size (no leftovers), extend food life
  span to match our lifestyles? Keep food properly
  refrigerated. Shrink-wrapped cucumber last longer
  than unpackaged cucumber
• The behaviour approach? Plan your meals, shop
  little and often, eat food soon after youve
  bought it, use your leftovers, compost scraps,
  shared living? Eat that cucumber sooner rather
  than later!

79
What might a less GHG intensive way of eating
look like?

• Changing the balance of what we eat
• Less meat dairy - lower down on food chain
• Seasonal field grown foods (less storage, heating
  transport)
• UK seasonal when possible
• Elsewhere seasonal when not
• Not eating certain foods
• Avoiding hothoused/air freighted produce (but
  developing world?)
• Reducing dependence on cold chain
• Robust foods (including less processed)
• Frequent non car based shopping / frequent
  turnover of food

80
Less GHG intensive eating

• But wasting less
• Eat what we buy, soon after weve bought it
• Accepting variability of quality and supply
• Efficient cooking
• Cook for more people and for several days
• Less use of oven
• Redefining quality
• Accepting different notions of quality
• Accepting more variability

81
How?

• Life is complicated and
• food is a complex part of life

82
Food and its meanings
Entertainment
Nurture
Neurosis
Pleasure
Need
Guilt
Ritual
Food
Habit
Satisfaction
Social glue
Love
Status
Power
Bribery
Comfort
Religious significance
Time-pass
83
Influenced by wider forces

• Price / affordability
• Availability
• Time work / stressed leisure syndrome
• Culture, social family expectations, norms,
  aspirations
• Knowledge, information, fashions beliefs
  (education, media, marketing)
• Demographic changes ageing population, single
  person society, wealth
• Technological changes
• Season
• Tastes
• Habits

84
What might this mean for the food industry?

• Consistency, choice, ubiquity, availability,
• variety
• Versus
• Less choice? More variability of quality? Non
• availability? A move away from cheap meat?
• From chilled foods.

85
You cannot wait for consumers to change their
behaviour

• They dont know enough
• They dont care enough
• Behaviour lock-in
• They wont unless they have to... Govt and
  industry must take the lead change the context
  of consumption

86
6. The policy context global and UK
87
The global context

• Rising population 9 billion by 2050
• Increasing food / oil prices
• Dash for biofuels
• Nutrition transition
• Land pressures
• (Climate change legislation...)

88
A few framing policies/initiatives

• Kyoto Protocol
• Bali 2007 agreement on deforestation
• EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• European Commission Energy Policy
• 20 GHG cut by 2020 (should be 30)
• Biofuels 10 transport fuels by 2020 (criticisms)
• Biofuels support EU, US

89
The UK context the new Climate Change Bill

• New UK Climate Change Bill 60 reduction by
  2050 Targeted 5 yearly budgets set at least 15
  years ahead
• 26-32 cut by 2020
• This is good but we need 80-90 cuts to keep
  emissions below 450ppm
• Target currently being reconsidered

90
Food/climate relevant legislation and initiatives
(UK)

• Climate Change Agreements
• Carbon Reduction Commitment (consultation)
• Food Industry Sustainability Strategy and
  champions groups recommendations
• Market Transformation Programme (radical
  improvements in devt and uptake of energy
  efficient technology)
• Cabon Trust advice and support
• Various Defra research programmes
• Product road maps on reducing impacts (eg.
  dairy products
• Developing consistent GHG labelling methodology
  (with business and British Standards)
• Thinking about personal carbon allowances (could
  food be incorporated into this?)

91
UK policy

• Is this enough? Little direct focus on
  agriculture
• Business running ahead of Government
• Where is a coherent vision backed up with a plan?

92
Government Some policy tools
What measures have worked for food how can we
strengthen them?
Consumers
Regulation Legislation Caps, quotas, thresholds,
bans Economic and fiscal Voluntary
agreements Education, marketing
promotion Social pressure
Policy instruments
Food industry
What new measures should we be considering?
Technological change uptake

93
7. What is the food industry doing?
94
Some food industry initiatives - agriculture

• Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (Nestle,
  Unilever, Danone, Kraft etc.)
• EUREPGAP
• Roundtables on sustainable soy / palm oil
• Not specifically climate focused

95
Food industry initiatives retailers

• M S
• 200 million Plan A
• All operations carbon neutral by 2012
• 25 energy cut power stores with green
  electricity
• Label and reduce air freighted produce
• Tesco
• Label and reduce air freighted produce
• 50 energy cut in stores and DCs by 2020
• 100 million renewables fund
• Halve distribution emissions / case in 5 yrs
• Migros (Switzerland) to introduce carbon
  labelling
• French and Australian announcements

96
Food industry initiatives manufacturers

• Tate Lyle biomass boiler to replace 70 fossil
  energy
• McCain's up to 70 electricity needs from
  renewables including wind turbines and CHP plant
  running on biogas
• Cadburys 50 absolute cut in carbon emissions
  by 2020
• Many others starting to carbon footprint their
  operations
• But focus of food industry is on efficiency
  rather than shifts in consumption.

97
Policy business limitations

• Reluctant to question core business principles of
  Choice, Variety, Ubiquity, Repeatability,
  Convenience.
• And therefore scope for GHG reduction limited
  largely to technological change
• And technological change alone creates further
  behavioural changes
• Need not just to do things more efficiently but
• Sell / dont sell different stuff - choice
  editing

98
8. Observations and conclusions
99
Foods impacts

• Climate change is happening
• Food contributes to a significant proportion of
  global GHG emissions
• All stages in the supply chain contribute to
  emissions
• Agriculture most significant stage / meat and
  dairy most GHG intensive food
• Global food demand is moving in more GHG
  intensive directions

100

• Climate change will affect global food supply -
  poor regions will suffer most
• Technology unlikely to get us to an 80 cut
• Consumption shifts needed too
• Policy and govt beginning to tackle problem but
  only from efficiency perspective

101
Some major concerns

• 9 billion people on planet in 2050
• Increase in numbers in absolute poverty AND
  growing wealth in many parts of developing world
• The poor will suffer most from climate change
• An 80 cut in developed world GHGs needed
• Tackle problems in isolation or as a whole -
  atomised vs synthetic approach?

102
Land the big challenge

• In the context of 9 billion on planet by 2050
• What is the best use of global land so that
• We are all fed adequately ...
• At minimum GHG cost?
• Stored carbon is not released?
• Biodiversity is protected?
• Other ethical non-negotiables upheld??
• Meeting Needs rather than demand - only feasible
  approach

103
In other words....

• Land to feed animals or to feed humans?
• Land for feed production or for carbon
  sequestration?
• Land for animal rearing or for biomass
  production?
• We need to collaborate globally and think
  strategically about how to make best use of land.
  But how?

104
Some research challenges

• We need to
• Gain good enough understanding of where the
  problem lies by particular food type
• Work out how far technology can get us
• Improve understanding on what sorts of
  consumption patterns (in the context of these
  technology changes) can help achieve reductions
• Understand more clearly how technological
  innovation influences behaviour and vice versa
• Frame the climate change debate in the context of
  other social, environmental and economic concerns
• LCA can inform policy but vagaries of consumer
  and business behaviour ALSO need to inform LCA

105
9. About the FCRN
106
The FCRN some context

• Funded by UK research council www.epsrc.ac.uk
• based at
• Surrey University (www.surrey.ac.uk)

107
The FCRN

• Funded by UK research council www.epsrc.ac.uk
• based at Surrey University (www.surrey.ac.uk)
• Focuses on
• Researching food chain contribution to GHG
  emissions and options for emissions reduction
• Sharing and communicating information on food
  climate change with 760 member network

108
Research activities

• What are the GHG impacts of food?
• What do we know about ways of reducing emissions,
  both technological behavioural?
• What dont we know?
• What are the policy implications?
• What are the future research priorities?

109
FCRN outputs

• Four comprehensive studies so far
• Fruit vegetables
• Alcoholic drinks
• Food refrigeration
• Meat dairy
• See here for publications http//www.fcrn.org.uk/r
  esearchLib/index.htm

110
Communication networking

• Communicates information fosters
• knowledge-sharing to 760 members
• Across disciplines
• Across sectors (eg. Govt, business, NGOs,
  academic)
• How?
• Mailing / newslist on food/climate issues
• Runs seminars
• Meetings presentations
• Website

111
Thank you and please join

• Tara Garnett
• taragarnett_at_blueyonder.co.uk
• www.fcrn.org.uk
• Food Climate Research Network