Content uploaded by Fabio Monforti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fabio Monforti on Jun 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Energy use in the EU food sector:
State of play and opportunities for
improvement
F. Monforti-Ferrario, J.-F. Dallemand, I. Pinedo Pascua, V. Motola,
M. Banja, N. Scarlat, H. Medarac, L. Castellazzi, N. Labanca, P. Bertoldi
D. Pennington, M. Goralczyk, E. M. Schau, E. Saouter, S. Sala
B. Notarnicola, G. Tassielli, P. Renzulli.
Edited by F. Monforti-Ferrario and I. Pinedo Pascua
2015
Report EUR 27247 EN
2
European Commission
Joint Research Centre
Institute for Energy and Transport and Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Contact information
Fabio Monforti-Ferrario
Address: Joint Research Centre, Via E. Fermi 2749, TP 450, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
E-mail: fabio.monforti-ferrario@ec.europa.eu
Tel.: +39 0332 78 3996
JRC Science Hub
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc
Legal notice
This publication is a Science for Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Co mmission’s in-house
science service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The
scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European
Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made
of this publication.
All images © European Union 2015, except:
Page 112 and 113 ©Kellog's
Page 116 ©Nestlé
Page 139 ©Elsevier
Page 141 and 142 ©S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC
JRC96121
EUR 27247 EN
ISBN 978-92-79-48299-1 (PDF)
ISBN 978-92-79-48298-4 (print)
ISSN 1831-9424 (online)
ISSN 1018-5593 (print)
doi: 10.2790/158316
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Abstract
The amount of energy necessary to cultivate, process, pack and bring the food to European citizens’ tables
accounts for 17 % of the EU's gross energy consumption, equivalent to about 26 % of the EU's final energy
consumption in 2013. Challenges and solutions for decreasing energy consumption and increasing the use of
renewable energy in the European food sector are presented and discussed.
3
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ 5
Disclaimer .......................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary ............................................................................................ 7
Introduction — Food and energy: the general view ................................................. 9
1. Energy flows in the food production sector in the European Union .................. 13
1.1 Assessing energy flows in the food sector — literature and methodologies .. 13
1.2 The JRC food basket in the ‘basket of product’ LCA analysis ...................... 16
1.2.1 The JRC food basket: data sources and selection methodology ............ 16
1.2.2 JRC food basket composition ........................................................... 17
1.3 Energy flows and GHG emissions related to the JRC food basket ................ 18
1.3.1 Methodology ................................................................................. 18
1.3.2 Estimates of energy embedded in the JRC basket products ................. 19
1.3.3 GHG emissions from the JRC food basket .......................................... 23
1.4 Energy flows and GHG emissions along the EU-27 food supply chain .......... 26
1.4.1 Energy flows along the EU-27 food supply chain ................................ 26
1.4.2 GHG emissions along the EU-27 food supply chain ............................. 27
2. Energy-related challenges and solutions in food production — behind the farm
gate ............................................................................................................. 29
2.1 Energy use in agriculture, livestock and aquaculture — the current situation
and recent trends .......................................................................................... 29
2.2 Realising energy efficiency in agriculture ................................................. 32
2.2.1 Optimising fertiliser production ........................................................ 32
2.2.2 Energy saving cultivation practices ................................................... 33
2.2.3 Further improving water use ........................................................... 36
2.2.4 Better livestock feeding .................................................................. 37
2.3 Fishery and aquaculture ........................................................................ 38
2.4 Opportunities for renewables in agriculture ............................................. 40
2.4.1 Renewable energy in the EU energy mix ........................................... 40
2.4.2 Opportunities for RE use in agriculture ............................................. 42
2.4.3 RE co-production in the farm system ................................................ 42
2.5 Examples of relevant recent EU-funded projects ...................................... 44
3. Energy-related challenges and solutions in food production — beyond the farm
gate ............................................................................................................. 55
3.1 Improving energy use in food transformation and the processing industry .. 55
3.1.1 Current situation and recent trends .................................................. 55
3.1.2 Technological and processes optimisation ......................................... 57
3.1.3 Plant system improvement .............................................................. 61
3.1.4 In-the-plant energy re-use .............................................................. 62
3.1.5 Examples of relevant recent EU-funded projects() .............................. 62
3.2 RE opportunities in food processing ........................................................ 67
3.2.1 Examples of relevant recent EU-funded projects ................................ 68
3.3 Energy use in food transport, storage and distribution .............................. 72
3.3.1 Current situation and recent trends .................................................. 73
3.3.2 Pathways to energy efficiency in EU food transport ............................ 78
3.3.3 Improving refrigeration .................................................................. 78
3.3.4 Decreasing transportation needs ...................................................... 79
3.4 Food packaging ................................................................................... 79
3.4.1 Designing optimal packaging ........................................................... 80
4
3.4.2 New materials and food packaging ................................................... 80
3.4.3 Examples of relevant recent EU-funded projects ................................ 80
3.5 Cooking and domestic conservation ........................................................ 82
3.5.1 Appliances improvement ................................................................. 82
3.5.2 Energy-conscious cooking habits ...................................................... 82
3.5.3 Examples of relevant recent EU-funded projects ................................ 83
3.6 Food waste ......................................................................................... 84
3.6.1 Food waste minimisation ................................................................ 85
3.6.2 Energy recovery from wasted food ................................................... 86
3.6.3 Examples of relevant recent EU-funded projects ................................ 86
3.7 Behavioural and customer-centred analyses ............................................ 90
3.7.1 Examples of relevant recent EU-funded projects ................................ 91
4. Un-tapping the potential for energy savings and renewable energy in the
European food chain ......................................................................................... 92
4.1 The role of European institutions ............................................................ 92
4.1.1 The big drivers: the Energy Efficiency Directive and the Renewable
Energy Directive ......................................................................................... 92
4.1.2 Energy in the framework of the Common Agriculture and Fishery policies .
................................................................................................... 97
4.1.3 Energy efficiency and renewable energy in industry ........................... 99
4.1.4 Ecodesign and energy labelling regulations ..................................... 100
4.1.5 Packaging ................................................................................... 101
4.1.6 Logistics ..................................................................................... 102
4.1.7 End of life and food wastage ......................................................... 102
4.1.8 Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) ................................... 103
4.1.9 Other relevant legislation and initiatives at EU level ......................... 104
4.1.10 Summary of relevant national initiatives ......................................... 104
4.2 Actual examples of innovative energy management in the European food
supply chain (). ........................................................................................... 106
4.2.1 Cogeca ....................................................................................... 106
4.2.2 PepsiCo Case Study — Energy efficiency projects ............................. 109
4.2.3 Kellogg’s ..................................................................................... 111
4.2.4 Mars .......................................................................................... 113
4.2.5 Nestlé ........................................................................................ 115
4.2.6 The Danish Agriculture and Food Council ........................................ 117
5. Recommendations and conclusions ........................................................... 119
References ..................................................................................................... 121
APPENDICES..................................................................................................... 133
A. Bibliometric study on food and energy: is EU research moving towards ‘smart
energy food’? ................................................................................................. 133
B. Fossil fuel prices and food prices — A concise literature review .................... 139
C. Food consumption patterns in Europe ....................................................... 145
D. Energy flows and greenhouse gas emissions from a set of traditional European
breads .......................................................................................................... 153
List of abbreviations and definitions .............................................................. 167
List of figures ................................................................................................. 169
List of tables .................................................................................................. 173
5
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the staff of Renewables and Carbon Capture and Storage policy
unit in DG ENER, starting from the Head of Unit Paula Abreu Marques and including Ruta
Baltause, Christopher McHone, Alexandra Sombsthay and Sara Demeersman
Jaganjacova for having conceived the idea of this report and for their continuous support
and valuable feedback.
Acknowledgements are also due to all JRC staff that supported this study: Irina Bucur,
Branka Kostovska, Kaat van Orshoven. Our gratitude goes also to Pierre Gaudillat, from
JRC IPTS, for his valuable contributions to the final draft. A special acknowledgement
goes to Heinz Ossenbrink and Constantin Ciupagea, for supporting and facilitating the
staff of their units in working together closely.
Patricia López, from FoodDrink Europe, played a key role for facilitating contacts with
case studies providers for Chapter 4.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any
circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
6
7
Executive summary
The food sector is a major consumer of energy: the amount of energy necessary to
cultivate, process, pack and bring the food to European citizens’ tables accounts for
17 % of the EU’s gross energy consumption in 2013, equivalent to about 26 % of the
EU’s final energy consumption in the same year.
Agriculture, including crop cultivation and animal rearing, is the most energy intense
phase of the food system—accounting for nearly one third of the total energy consumed
in the food production chain.
The second most important phase of the food life cycle is industrial processing, which
accounts for 28% of total energy use. Together with logistics and packaging, these three
phases of the food life cycle "beyond the farm gate" are responsible for nearly half of the
total energy use in the food system.
While the "end of life" phase including final disposal of food waste represents only
slightly more than 5% of total energy use in the EU food system, food waste actually
occurs at every step of the food chain. In 2014 the EU generated 100 million tonnes of
food waste, primarily at the household level and manufacturing. Given the large
amounts of energy involved in food production, reducing food waste is an important
vector for improving the overall energy efficiency of the food system. Food waste also
has the potential to play a role in renewable energy production as a feedstock for
bioenergy production.
Different food products need very different amounts of energy per unit of mass
depending on their nature, their origin and the kind of processing they have been
subjected to. Refined products and products of animal origin generally need an amount
of energy several times larger than vegetables, fruits and cereal products.
While the EU has made important progress in incorporating renewable energy across the
economy, the share of renewables in the food system remains relatively small.
Renewables accounted for just 7% of the energy used in food production and
consumption in 2013 compared to 15% in the overall energy mix.
Renewables more limited penetration is largely a reflection of the high reliance of the
food sector of fossil fuels. Overall, fossil fuels account for almost 79% of the energy
consumed by the food sector compared to 72% of overall energy consumption. The
relatively low share of renewables in the food sector is also linked to the fact that about
one fifth of food consumed in the EU is imported from regions outside the EU where the
renewable share is generally lower than 15%.
Building on these results, the report discusses the way ahead and highlights the main
challenges to be faced in decreasing the energy use and in increasing the renewable
energy share in the food sector. Sectoral literature reviews present solutions offered by
science and technology and industrial case studies and EU-funded research projects
show their practical application.
Although energy efficiency in agriculture production is steadily improving with direct
energy consumption per hectare declining by about 1% every year in the last two
decades, addressing the challenge of decoupling agriculture productivity from energy
consumption and GHG emissions will require an array of responses across the food
system.
Energy, especially in the form of indirect energy used for fertilisers and pesticides or
irrigation, remains a crucial input for cultivation success but huge improvements are
possible. More efficient fertiliser production technology and avoiding unnecessary
fertiliser applications through properly designed cultivation practices are expected to
complement each other and play a major role in decreasing indirect energy inputs to
agriculture. In this sense, considerable experience and data exist for organic farming,
8
no-tillage and integrated farming especially designed to minimise energy and material
inputs.
European farmers are already leading the way in this transition, for example, through
efforts to increase the use of renewable energy in agricultural production. Thanks to
investments in farm-based renewable technologies like biogas, farmers have the
potential to not only become energy self-sufficient, but also to make a major
contribution to EU energy production while reducing GHG emissions.
The increasing popularity of on-farm biogas has provided 13.4 Mtoe (mega-tonne oil
equivalent) of primary energy and 52.3 TWh of biogas-based electricity in the EU in
2013. Based on the National Renewable Energy Action Plan projections, by 2020 biogas
could account for 1.5% of the EU's primary energy supply and 5% of overall natural gas
consumption.
The EU food industry is also making important contributions to make their activities
more sustainable, through both increased investment in renewable energy and energy
efficiency improvements. The food industry's energy consumption from 2005-13 has
declined, both in absolute terms as well as in terms of energy intensity, producing more
while using less energy. Several food processing industries are also exploring the
possibility of recovering the energy contained in food residues on site, through biogas
production or in dedicated combined heat and power plants.
Energy efficiency in food transport is pursued through two possible pathways: improving
the energy performance of the transportation systems and decreasing or optimising the
amount of transportation itself. Trade-offs are also to be considered: while it is generally
true that food travelling long distances embeds more energy than locally originated food,
several studies reveal that the issue needs to be carefully assessed on a case-by-case
approach, for example in case of vegetables. Scientific literature reports cases where
efficient transportation from warm countries resulted in less energy use in comparison
with vegetables locally grown in greenhouses.
Consumers also have an important role to play as everyday decisions about food
consumption can effect of the amount of energy required by food by as much as a factor
of four. Potential actions consumers can take to reduce their energy "food print"
include: reducing meat consumption, buying locally and seasonally, as well as reducing
food waste and substituting organic food when possible.
Policy design reflects the complexity of the challenge: in the EU, a large portfolio of
policies and political initiatives have already been deployed and other are going to be
adopted, resulting in an important combined effect for the overall energy profile of food
production.
EU policies such as the Renewable Energy Directive and the Energy Efficiency Directive
have helped set the stage for a transition to a more sustainable food system, but do not
directly target the food production process. The EU's Common Agriculture Policy also
plays an important role, in particular through incentivising investments in more
sustainable farming methods, as well as the rural development programme which aims
to "facilitate the supply and use of renewable sources of energy."
9
Introduction — Food and energy: the general view
The world demand for food will increase substantially in the next decades, due to
demographic growth: world population should increase from 7.1 billion in 2013 to 9.6
billion by 2050 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population
Division, 2013; Nellemann et al., 2009). The biggest share of population increase will
take place in developing countries where life standards and incomes are also expected to
improve. Better life conditions will lead to a larger per capita consumption of animal-
protein (meat, milk and dairy products), vegetable oils and processed food - see Figure
I.1. (McIntyre, Herren, Wakhungu & Watson, 2009a, 2009b).
Figure I.1 Consumption projections for some groups of food products up to 2050 in
the world (top panel), developing countries (left bottom panel) and developed
countries (right bottom panel)(Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). NB: ‘Cereals food’
consumption includes the grain equivalent of beer consumption and of corn
sweeteners.
In Europe, the demographic growth will be smaller if compared with world's trend. The
EU-28 is expected to increase from a population of about 507 million in 2013 to 526
million in 2050 (EuroStat, 2014: EuroPop 2013 — base scenario). Nevertheless, even in
Europe per capita consumption of meat, oil and diary product will increase (see again
Figure I.1, bottom panel), although the amount of these products currently consumed is
already substantial. This global trend towards a larger world's population consuming
larger amount of complex food will impact energy consumption. According to the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2011a), the agri-food sector
10
currently accounts, directly or indirectly, for around 30 % of the world’s total end-use
energy consumption (
1
). The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agri-food sector
amount to about 10 Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, i.e. roughly one-fifth
of the overall world GHG emissions in 2010 (Olivier, Janssens-Maenhout, Muntean &
Peters, 2013) .
A precise accounting of energy consumed (and mis-consumed) in food production is
extremely challenging. Food is a very composite entity and the amount of energy for
bringing it ‘from farm to fork’ varies greatly from one product to another. Even when
considering the same type of product, the energy ‘cost’ differs notably, reflecting
changes on cultivation area, farming practices, efficiency of processing and storage,
season of production and/or consumption, transportation needs, etc.
The food supply chain consists of several successive steps, each needing energy for its
specific processes. Figure I.2 shows FAO estimates on energy shares consumed in the
various food chain supply steps, in terms of world average and for high and low gross
domestic product (GDP) countries (
2
).
Figure I.2 Final energy consumption in the food sector and its shares for various
production steps. Global (top) high-GDP (middle) and low-GDP (bottom) countries
Source: (FAO, 2013a, p. 144).
Agriculture plays a similar role regardless of GDP: 20 % (low GDP) and 25 % (high
GDP). The share of energy used for retail, preparation and cooking is considerably higher
in low-GDP countries (about 45 %) than in high-GDP countries (30 %). Experts attribute
this fact to the more inefficient (and unhealthy) cooking habits in developing countries
(FAO, 2013a). A useful indicator for the energy ‘cost’ of food products is the sum of all
energy inputs along the production chain: the so-called embedded (or embodied)
(
1
) Such an estimate refers to a world average, and it is expected to be smaller for developed countries,
where a larger amount of energy is consumed in industrial and service activities that are not related to
agriculture and food production.
(
2
) The caveat associated in such an estimate (FAO, 2011b) is worth remembering: ‘It should be noted that
[Figure I.2 is] indicative only and should be interpreted with care. FAO analyses were based on the range
of data available, but this data was at times unreliable, incomplete and out of date since related energy
[…] data as presented in the literature.’
11
energy. Each processing step, including end-of-life management of the product and its
residues, increases the amount of energy embedded in the product
The energy embedded in food products does not account only for direct energy uses,
such as moving a tractor, heating an oven or powering a mixer. On the contrary, it
includes also indirect energy flows, such as the energy needed to produce and transport
fertilisers or to operate irrigation systems.
Generally, the direct energy flow measures the energy inputs used at a given stage of a
product or service while the indirect energy flow includes the accumulated energy inputs
used to produce the inputs for a given stage of a product or service (Pelletier et al.,
2011).
Chapter 1 of this report provides an evaluation of food-related energy flows in the
European Union updated to 2013, including an estimate of the contribution of the
different sectors and energy sources to the overall energy embedded in the most
representative European food products.
The main challenges in decreasing energy use in the food sector and increasing the
renewable energy share are reported and discussed in Chapter 2 (behind the farm gate)
and in Chapter 3 (beyond the farm gate), together with potential solutions and
strategies suggested by the scientific community.
Technology focused measures for increasing the energy efficiency of the food sector
range from technological improvements (e.g. more efficient engines, optimal transport
schemes) to improved farming practices (e.g. better fertiliser applications, low-tillage
agriculture) and include, indirect measures acting on indirect energy inputs such as
improvements in the water supply to irrigated crops and transformation industry.
As in other industries, the suitability of energy-efficiency measures in food production is
a challenge for policy formulation: measures are subject to trade-offs and economies of
scale and they should be carefully assessed before being implemented. Energy-saving
measures must not affect productivity and must be appropriate to the scale of the
country/region/district/industry, etc. and the scientific community is very active in
exploring new methodologies and systemic approaches.
Improvements can also be achieved involving other actors. For example, consumers can
contribute to reducing the environmental/energy impact of the sector by changing their
dietary and food purchasing behaviours (i.e. buying local food, respecting seasonality,
etc.), or by properly using domestic appliances or by minimising domestic food waste.
Renewable energy (RE) can substitute fossil fuels, partially or completely, in several food
production steps, improving sustainability and contributing to decoupling the food costs
from the oil price (see Appendix 0). Thanks to Renewable Energy Directive targets (see
Chapter 4) the amount of RE in the food production in Europe will grow. On top of that,
farmers and companies can directly buy RE from a specific ‘green’ energy supplier or
even self-produce their energy, e.g. through biogas production plants or combined heat
and power (CHP) units fed with agriculture residues.
Food losses and waste are a major cause for energy loss in food supply: one-third of the
food is lost or wasted at the global level (FAO, 2011a), while in the EU the amount of
food waste was 89 million tonnes in 2006, reached 100 million tonnes in 2014 (EC,
2015) and is expected to increase to 126 million tonnes in 2020 (BIO Intelligence
Service, 2010). Experts point at mismatch between supply and demand, poor purchase
planning or unconsumed cooked food as main causes of food waste.
Along with any intervention, special attention should be paid to rebound effects (
3
).
There is a risk that investments in a single part of the plant/farm lead to lack of
(
3
) According to Sorrell and Dimitropoulos (2008), the potential ‘energy savings’ from improved energy
12
attention resulting in additional and unnecessary energy consumption in other sections
of the same plant/farm (Ruzzenenti and Basosi, 2008; Sorrell and Dimitropoulos, 2008;
Sorrell, 2007).
The International community is aware of the issue. Decreasing the amount of energy
embedded in food products and/or making it more sustainable by increasing the use of
renewable energy is the core of the ‘energy-smart’ food strategy as defined by the FAO
(2011a) and more recently enshrined in the UN initiative Sustainable Energy for All
(Accenture & UN-Global Compact, 2012).
In the EU, a large portfolio of policies aiming at decreasing energy consumption and
increasing renewable share in the food production chain has been deployed by both
European institutions and Member States and are presented in Chapter 4.
Industry operating in the European food sector has proven to be actively committed to
translating measures into practical improvements and the report describes several case
studies, including both EU-funded scientific projects and examples from the industry
sector collected through the European Food Sustainable Consumption and Production
Round Table.
efficiency are commonly estimated using basic physical principles and engineering models. However, the
energy savings that are realised in practice generally fall short of these engineering estimates. One
explanation is that improvements in energy efficiency encourage greater use of the services (for example
heat or mobility) which energy helps to provide. Behavioural responses such as these have come to be
known as the energy-efficiency ‘rebound effect’ or Jevons' paradox.
13
1. Energy flows in the food production sector in the
European Union
1.1 Assessing energy flows in the food sector — literature and
methodologies
The food sector is a very composite industrial sector, based on very diverse feedstock
and with several specific production steps leading to the final product. Full understanding
of the energy content of food products and the opportunities for energy efficiency and
renewable energies is challenging, and few energy-focused comprehensive studies of the
whole food sector exist. On the contrary, studies targeting a specific production step, a
specific feedstock and/or a specific set of measures are relatively more common.
Among the studies covering the whole sector, the reports produced by the FAO, in the
framework of the Energy-smart Food for People and Climate (ESF) Programme must be
mentioned (See Figure I.2). The FAO’s ESF Programme focuses on raising awareness on
the dependency of global agri-food systems on fossil fuels, the implications this
dependency has for food security and climate, and the potential for agri-food systems to
alleviate this problem by becoming a source of renewable energy (
4
).
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) have jointly produced a very detailed study on energy flows for the United States
of America (USA)'s food sector by means of an input-output analysis. The main findings
are included in Box 1. Pimentel et al. (2008), Woods et al. (2010) and Pelletier et al.
(2011) have reviewed sectorial literature gathering the challenges and measures faced
by these type of analysis.
In order to illustrate how sparse the scientific literature in this field is, Appendix A
presents a detailed bibliometric analysis of the international literature on food and
energy.
Methodological issues
Burney (2001) noticed that any energy improvement analysis should start with the
assessment of direct and indirect energy flows throughout the supply chain: measures
applied to larger energy flows produce more overall benefits in comparison to measures
addressing niche consumption areas.
The quantitative assessment of energy flows in food systems has been traditionally
carried out following two approaches (Burney, 2001): the life cycle analysis (LCA) and
the input-output (IO) accounting. These two methodologies differ in both the general
approach (LCA follows a bottom-up pathway while IO works in a top-down way) and the
data inputs, and therefore it is not surprising that results sometimes vary, even to a
large extent.
LCA seeks to assess the environmental impacts and the use of resources across the
entire product life cycle, in order to identify possible room for improvements. All the
steps involved in creating a certain product are analysed, starting from raw material
extraction and conversion, then manufacture and distribution, to the final use and/or
consumption. LCA also includes re-use, recycling of materials, energy recovery and
ultimate disposal.
On the other hand, the input–output analysis is a tool that can be used to provide
estimates of inputs (including energy) per unit of final product based on how various
sectors of an economy are linked and exchange resources (including energy).
(
4
) Full details on the FAO’s ESF programme can be found on http://www.fao.org/energy/81350/en/
14
As a general rule, IO focuses on industrial sectors of a given economic area and can
provide very precise results down to a certain level of aggregation, taking into account
direct and indirect contributions. Nevertheless, IO needs to be complemented with
exogenous data as far as process steps taking place outside the studied economic area
are concerned.
As a major example of IO methodology application in the food sector, Canning et al.
(2010) have assessed the energy flows of a large number of composite food categories
in the USA, (see Box 1 for additional details), while Cao et al. (2010) have evaluated the
energy flows in the Chinese agriculture sector.
On the contrary, LCA, as a product-focused methodology, takes into consideration all
energy inputs along the full production (and disposal) chain, wherever these occur. LCA,
however, needs detailed data on product ‘history’ and is very sensitive to the definition
of the boundaries of the production system and to the methodology used for allocating
the embodied energy among co-products or by-products.
LCA has become a very widely used tool in food energy assessment. Following the need
for improving the consistency of different references, Peano et al. (2014) recently
reported the ongoing effort for creating a new World Food LCA Database, ideally
providing detailed data for food produced in a large number of countries and regions
across the world. While methodological guidelines for food life cycle analysis have
already been published (Nemecek et al., 2014), the full database is expected to be
released in late 2015.
LCA remains challenging when applied to large economic sectors as apparently ‘similar’
products can be enormously diverse in reality (See Appendix D for a case study on
European bread). In order to make sectorial LCA analysis achievable, a compromise has
to be found between the representativeness of the set of products analysed and practical
feasibility.
For this reason, in the framework of its coordination of the European Platform on Life
Cycle Assessment (EPLCA), the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission
developed a specific EU ‘basket of products’ for nutrition (EC — DG JRC, 2012a, 2012b).
Thanks to its LCA standardised approach, the basket allowed monitoring the food
consumption patterns and its environmental impacts, including GHG emissions. For this
report the analysis has been updated to 2013 and has been extended to include the
embedded energy. Results are presented and discussed in next sections.
Box 1 — Energy flows in the US food
system
Energy use in the US Food System is the
topic covered by the ERR-94 Report of the
US Department of Agriculture (Canning et
al., Economic Research Service / USDA,
2010), prepared in cooperation with MIT.
Energy is used throughout the entire food
supply chain, from the manufacture and
application of agricultural inputs such as
fertilisers, for irrigation, through crop and
livestock production, processing and
packaging. At a later stage, energy is also
used for distribution services, such as
shipping and cold storage/refrigeration,
preparation, disposal equipment in food
retailing and food service establishments,
and in the home kitchens of citizens.
Dependence on energy throughout the entire
food chain raises concerns about the impact
of high or variable energy prices on the final
price of food for the consumer, as well as
about domestic food security and the
country’s possible reliance on imports of
energy. In addition to concerns about
energy/food prices and energy security, the
use of energy in the food chain can also have
environmental impacts, one example being
carbon dioxide emissions.
A number of studies have addressed the
food-related energy use in the USA. These
studies generally indicate that:
food-related energy use has
remained a substantial share of the
total national energy budget;
food-related energy use of
households has been the largest
among the seven supply chain stages
15
considered (agriculture, processing,
packaging, transportation, wholesale
and retail, food services,
households);
food-related energy flows may have
increased significantly over the last
few years.
These results, however, do not explain why
energy use has changed over time and do
not provide a valid quantification of these
changes, since the various studies rely on
different data sources and different model
assumptions. The added value provided by
this USDA Report 94 is that it compares the
estimates of energy use in 1997 and 2002 by
using data exclusively from two Federal
agencies and is based on the same energy
flow model for each year of analysis. This
harmonised approach facilitates valid
comparisons of energy flows over time. This
report thus provides policy-makers and
analysts with information to assess which
stages of the food supply chain and what
industries are the largest energy users, and
which stages and industries have
experienced the fastest rates of energy-use
growth. The report allows the identification of
the factors that have influenced the increase
in energy use in the food sector and also the
factors that are likely to influence changes in
the future.
Regarding the findings of this study, it
appeared that between 1997 and 2002 the
energy use per capita in the United States of
America decreased by 1.8 %, while the per
capita food-related energy use in the USA
increased by 16.4 %. The population of the
USA grew by more than 14 million over the
period, increasing the total energy use by
3.3 % and increasing the total food-related
energy use by 22.4 %. As a share of the
national energy budget, food-related energy
use grew from 12.2 % in 1997 to 14.4 % in
2002. Several economic factors can influence
the use of energy throughout the US food
system, such as labour and energy costs, the
ability to substitute between these inputs
when their costs change, the time availability
of households for food-related activities and
household affluence. The findings suggest
that about half of the growth in food-related
energy use between 1997 and 2002 is
explained by a shift from human labour
towards a greater reliance on energy services
across almost all food categories. High labour
costs in the food services and food
processing industries, combined with
increased consumption of prepared foods and
more eating out, appear to be driving this
result. The increases in food expenditure per
capita and in population growth also
contributed to the increase in food-related
energy use over this period, with each trend
accounting for roughly a quarter of the total
increase.
However, the study showed the largest
growth in energy use over this period, as
both households and food service
establishments increasingly outsourced
manual food preparation and clean-up
activities to the manufacturing sector. Over
this period, the food processing and food
service industries faced increasing labour
costs, while energy prices in this period were
lower and far less volatile than they have
been since 2002. In agriculture, the increase
in energy use in relative terms was attributed
to the producers of vegetables and poultry
products. The freight service industry
accounted for a small share of the increase in
overall food-related energy use, but a
substantial share of the increase attributed to
some food commodities, especially fresh fruit
and poultry products.
A projection of food-related energy use
suggests that food-related energy use as a
share of the national energy budget grew
from 14.4 % in 2002 to an estimated 15.7 %
in 2007.
This study was conducted on the basis of
input-output material flow analysis and
measured the flows of all energy sources
used in the USA to reach the final markets
via three inter-connected steps:
measurement of all known quantities
of energy directly used in each
domestic production activity,
including household operations,
organised into roughly 400 industry
classifications;
tracing the flow of energy embodied
in each of the energy-using industry
products throughout the production
economy and into a complete
accounting of final market sales;
identification of all food-related final
markets and assessment of the food-
related energy embodied in all final
market sales.
This analysis used data from two Federal
sources: the Bureau of Economic Analysis
Benchmark Input-Output Tables and the
Energy Information Administration’s State
Energy Data System.
16
1.2 The JRC food basket in the ‘basket of product’ LCA analysis
European food consumption is complex (see also Appendix 0). and the definition of a
'reference' EU food basket is a challenging task. Indeed, the basket cannot be too
detailed so the analysis can be performed within a reasonable amount of time and
resources, and should contain products for which robust data accepted and validated
through peer reviewing is available.
As already mentioned in section 1.1, the JRC has recently developed a battery of ‘basket
of products’ indicators, aimed at analysing and monitoring the consumption patterns in
the EU and their related environmental impacts. A specific basket of products for
nutrition was then developed (EC — DG JRC, 2012a, 2012b) and a preliminary
assessment of the EU food consumption impacts prepared, which already included GHG
emissions but not embodied energy.
The JRC basket-of-product study has been recently revised and updated, providing a
picture of the nutrition basket updated to 2013. The details are presented and discussed
in next paragraphs.
1.2.1 The JRC food basket: data sources and selection methodology
The proper identification of a ‘food basket’ for EU food consumption that is
representative of the actual consumption patterns and at the same time manageable is
quite a complex issue. Depending on the extent and quality of the available data, a
drastic simplification of the food consumption patterns (see Appendix 0) is generally
necessary.
A detailed description of the basket definition methodology is available in JRC (2012b).
In short, the authors analysed data regarding food consumption, mainly from the
Eurostat ProdCom (Eurostat-ProdCom, 2015) and FAOSTAT (
5
) databases, and
complemented it with specific nutrition and food consumption data from a literature
survey on emerging consumption trends including data from reports on food
consumption and relative environmental aspects within the EU (DEFRA, 2012; EEA,
2012; Eurostat, 2011; FAO, 2011b; Foster, Green, Bleda and Dewik, 2006; Tukker,
Huppes, Guinée, Heijungs, de Koning, van Oers, Suh, Geerken, Van Holderbeke and
Jansen, 2006).As a result of such an analysis, the food consumption data detailed in
Table 1.1 was prepared for 2013 in the EU-27.
Representative products for each food category were then finally chosen on the basis of
the following criteria:
Amounts of a food product. Products consumed in the largest quantities were
considered as potential basket products;
Prior knowledge of the magnitude of environmental impacts of a type of food
product. Certain food types, such as meat and dairy products (Foster et al.,
2006), have the greatest impact, especially in terms of greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) (Tukker, Huppes, Guinée, Heijungs, de Koning, van Oers, Suh, Geerken,
Van Holderbeke and Jansen, 2006), compared not only to other food products but
also to all consumer goods (Gerber et al., 2013). Moreover, meat and dairy
products embody a significantly higher amount of energy if compared with other
food categories (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003).
Types of product whose consumption trend has been increasing during the last
ten years, such as frozen and/or pre-cooked meals.
(
5
) Whenever incomplete or incongruent Eurostat data was encountered it was verified, integrated or
substituted with the same data from the FAOSTAT databases regarding food and drinks.
17
Table 1.1 2013 consumption in the EU-27 of food categories as defined in the
Eurostat ProdCom database. Source: Authors’ elaboration on Eurostat, FAO and other
data sets (see text)
1.2.2 JRC food basket composition
Table 1.2 shows the 17 products identified as the most representative for the nutrition
basket. Table 1.3 details these products and their consumption in 2013 and defines the
‘JRC food basket’ It is worth noticing that, obviously, this food basket does not cover all
food consumption but represents the very noticeable mass share of 61 % of the
consumed food in 2013 in the EU-27 (see Table 1.1).
Table 1.2 Products selected in order to compose the JRC food basket of products and
their represented product groups. Source: Authors’ own analysis.
Categories of food products
2013 consumption in EU-27
[1 000 t]
Cereal products 44996
Dairy products 67068
Oils and fats 20668
Fruit and vegetables, 36834
Meat and fish 58899
Alcoholic drinks 50659
Non-alcoholic drinks 126902
Pre-prepared meals 5013
Sugar and confectionaries 25548
Other 17353
Total 453940
Product groups
Selected basket product
Meat and s eafood Beef, pork, poultry
Dai ry products Mil k, cheese, butter
Crop-bas ed products Olive oil, sunflower oil, sugar
Cereal-based products Bread
Vegetabl es Potatoes
Fruit Oranges and apples
Beverages Coffee, mineral water, beer
Pre-prepared meals Meat-based meals
18
Table 1.3 Details of the consumption and economic value of products making up the
"JRC food basket" for 2013. Source: Authors’ own analysis based on Eurostat, FAO and
other data sources.
1.3 Energy flows and GHG emissions related to the JRC food
basket
1.3.1 Methodology
As previously mentioned, a detailed analysis of the overall environmental impacts of the
JRC food basket has been developed through the LCA of each product, following a
harmonised methodological framework. A detailed description of the methodology
applied is available in Notarnicola et al (2015); the main key points of the analysis
follow.
System boundaries consider a cradle-to-grave approach: for each stage of the life cycle,
the authors developed the process-based life cycle inventories for the selected
representative products. For each product, system boundaries include the agricultural
and production stage, the packaging production and disposal, the logistics - including
international trade, domestic distribution and retail.
In particular, to assess the impact of retail, the following assumptions were made:
product is purchased in a large store; the energy consumption of the store is allocated to
the various products according to their weight (Nielsen et al., 2003); for products that
require a refrigerated storage the electric energy consumption is evaluated on the basis
of the volume occupied (considering the specific weight of the products) and the time
spent in the store (EPD, 2012); the losses occurred in the shop undergo a waste
treatment which, therefore, is charged at retail.
Food losses throughout the life cycle have also been accounted for.
The production chain has been divided into six parts, each considering one or more
stages (see Table 1.4).
Basket product
Per-capita apparent
consumption
[kg/inhabitant year]
% of total per-
capita apparent
basket
consumption
Pig meat 22 449 44.7 8.1% 40 797
Beef 6 914 13.8 2.5% 30 818
Poultry 13 248 26.4 4.8% 28 444
Bread 19 136 38.1 6.9% 29 114
Milk and cream 39 326 78.2 14.2% 24 953
Cheese 9 347 18.6 3.4% 36 564
Butter 1 927 3.8 0.7% 7 193
Sugar 15 913 31.7 5.7% 11 383
Refined sunflower oil 2 661 5.3 1.0% 2 781
Olive oil 1 955 3.9 0.7% 4 490
Potatoes 36 475 72.6 13.1% 10 166
Oranges 7 012 14.0 2.5% 4 097
Apples 9 104 18.1 3.3% 5 340
Mineral water* 55 405 * 110.2 * 19.9% 11 358
Roasted coffee 1 793 3.6 0.6% 10 690
Beer* 33 553 * 66.8 * 12.1% 26 270
Prepared dishes and
meals-meat based
1 502 3.0 0.5% 13 958
TOTAL 277 722 552.6 100.0% 298 415
* in l itres
Total consumption
of basket product
[1 000t/year]
Economic value of the
consumption of each
basket product
[million EUR/year]
19
Table 1.4 Production parts and stages of food production chains. Source: Authors’
own analysis.
Special care was given to assessing the quality of data used in the study on the basis of
the following parameters, developing a ‘pedigree’ data matrix:
time-related coverage: age of data;
geographical coverage: geographical area from which data for unit processes has
been collected;
technology coverage: specific technology or technology mix;
completeness: type of provided flow;
consistency: coherence of data with the methodology and assumptions of the
study.
The impact categories chosen are Cumulative Energy Demand v 1.08 and Global
Warming. The cumulative energy demand is based on the method published by
ecoinvent version 2.0 (Frischknecht, Jungbluth, Althaus, Doka, Dones, Hellweg, Hischier,
Humbert, Margni, Nemecek and Spielmann, 2007) and adopted to be used in the
SimaPro LCA software and databases (PRé Consultants, 2014). For Global warming, the
characterisation factors are taken from the model developed by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
1.3.2 Estimates of energy embedded in the JRC basket products
Figure 1.1 shows the amount of energy embedded in the JRC food basket in units of MJ
per EU citizen, broken down for the 17 products represented and their production steps.
Figure 1.2 shows the same data per kilogram of product.
Production parts Production stages
Agriculture/breeding
• Cultivation of crops
• Animal rearing
• Food waste management (relevant part)
Industrial processing
• Processing of ingredients
• Slaughtering, processing and storage of meat
• Chilled or frozen storage
• Food waste management (relevant part)
Logistics
• International transport of imports
• Transport to manufacturer
• Transport to regional distribution centre
• Distribution
• Transport to retailer
• Retail
• Food waste management (relevant part)
Packaging
• Manufacture of packaging
• Final disposal of packaging
Use
• Transport of the products from retailer to consumer's home
• Refrigerated storage at home
• Cooking of the meal
End of life
• Final disposal of food waste
• Wastewater treatment
20
Figure 1.1 Energy embedded in the JRC food consumption basket for the average
citizen, broken down for products and production steps. Units: MJ/capita. Source:
Authors’ own analysis.
Figure 1.2 confirms that livestock and dairy products (except milk) incorporate a
substantial amount of energy (see also section 3.7), while vegetables and bread are less
energy-intensive per kilogram of product. It is worth noticing that data reported for
coffee refers to grains or powder of product and not to the infusion, which is prepared
differently across the EU.
Figure 1.2 Energy embedded in the production steps and products making up the JRC
food basket. * Units in MJ/kg or MJ/l (for beer, milk and mineral water). Source:
Authors’ own analysis.
21
Figure 1.3 shows the shares of energy embedded in a kilogram of each of the 17
products along the different production steps. The relative weight of production steps is
very different in different products: For instance, the relevance of the agriculture step
(including livestock raising) for the meat and dairy-related products is overwhelming,
while packaging plays an important role in the ‘bottled’ products such as milk, oil, beer
and mineral water.
Figure 1.3 Shares of energy embedded along the production steps of a kilogram of
product for the 17 products represented in the JRC food basket. Source: Authors’ own
analysis.
About the source of energy embedded in the JRC food basket, Figure 1.4 shows that in
all the steps of the food supply chain, most of energy used is derived from fossil fuels,
followed by nuclear energy. Hydro energy plays an important role in industrial
processing while the energy from biomass is significant in the end-of-life stage. Figure
1.5 shows the energy sources for each of the products in the JRC food basket.
22
Figure 1.4 Sources of energy embedded in the JRC food basket in units of mega
joules (MJ), in absolute (top panel) and relative (bottom panel) terms. Units:
MJ/capita. Source: Authors’ own analysis.
23
Figure 1.5 Sources of energy embedded in each of the products making up the JRC
food basket in absolute (top panel) and relative (bottom panel) terms. *Units in MJ/kg
or MJ/l (for beer, milk and mineral water). Source: Authors’ own analysis.
1.3.3 GHG emissions from the JRC food basket
Figure 1.6 shows the GHG emissions related to the whole life cycle of the products
composing the JRC food basket in units of kg of CO2e per EU citizen, again broken down
for the 17 products represented and their production steps. Figure 1.7 shows the same
data per kilogram of product.
24
Figure 1.6 Annual greenhouse gas emissions related to the average EU citizen’s
consumption of the JRC food basket, detailed per product and per production step in
absolute (top panel) and relative (bottom panel) terms. Units in kg of CO2e/capita.
Source: Authors’ own analysis.
Consumption of dairy and meat products confirm its major role in GHG emissions even
when emissions are estimated per kg of product (Figure 1.7), with the exception of milk.
Emissions from the agriculture/zoo-technical stage are also particularly significant for the
dairy and meat products: agriculture emissions account for 73, 81 % and 71 % for milk,
butter and cheese, respectively. In the case of beef, pork and poultry agriculture linked
GHG emissions reach the shares of 95 %, 84 % and 84 % respectively. Not surprisingly,
25
the same two groups of products also account for the largest absolute amounts of non-
CO2 GHG emissions (see Figure 1.7), again indicating the major role of agricultural
production phase in their life cycle.
Figure 1.7 Greenhouse gas emissions per quantity of product and for type of GHG for
the 17 products included in the JRC food basket in absolute (top panel) and relative
(bottom panel) terms. Data in kilograms of CO2e/kg of product. Source: Authors’ own
analysis.
26
1.4 Energy flows and GHG emissions along the EU-27 food supply
chain
1.4.1 Energy flows along the EU-27 food supply chain
Data presented in section 1.3.2 describes the energy embodied in the JRC food basket in
2013 and its origin. However, the JRC food basket does not cover the whole food
consumption in the EU-27 and so the results need to be extrapolated to estimate the
energy flows across the whole EU-27 food supply chain.
Products selected for the basket were expected to represent well the product groups to
which they belong. Under this assumption, the energy embodied per mass unit in the 17
sample products was supposed to be equal to the energy embodied per mass unit in all
the products belonging to the same group (Table 1.2) including production steps and
energy source. In the case of two or more products belonging to the same group (e.g.
meat), the weighted average of the energy profiles of the sample products was
considered, using consumption data from Table 1.3 as weighting coefficients (
6
). In this
way, the energy embodied in the whole amount of food consumed in the EU-27 in 2013,
as reported in Table 1.1, has been estimated.
However, food actually consumed does not equal the total food produced to satisfy
European consumption, as wasted food in the EU has been estimated to be about 100
million tonnes per year (EC, 2015). The energy embedded in the wasted food was
estimated as the weighted average of food products contained in the whole JRC food
basket.
Figure 1.8 shows the results of energy flow analysis in terms of the average energy
embedded in the food consumed by each EU citizen, including the amount of energy lost
in food wastage, detailed per production step.
In total, an energy amount of about 23.6 GJ is embedded in the food consumed in 2013
by each European citizen, equivalent to the gross energy provided by 655 litres of Diesel
fuel. Considering a population of 502.5 million people, the overall amount of energy
embedded in the food consumed in EU-27 in 2013 is estimated to 11 836 PJ (283 Mtoe),
equivalent to 17 % of the EU-27’s gross energy consumption and 25.7 % of its final
energy consumption in 2013.
Such an estimate is equal to the figure of 17% of energy consumption in the UK related
to food production reported by DEFRA (2013) and it is also consistent with FAO
evaluations (see Figure I.2)
when applied to strongly
industrialised areas.
Figure 1.8 Energy
embedded in the food
consumed by the average
EU-27 citizen, broken down
by food production step.
Source: Authors’ own
analysis(
7
).
(
6
) In the case of the ‘other’ category, the average energy content of the whole JRC food basket was
assumed.
(
7
) More detailed calculations indicate that retail accounts for about 12% of the average logistics energy
consumption, and the rest is caused by transport Nevertheless, this estimate is subject to a large variability
when applied to single products.
27
In Figure 1.8 it can be noted that one-third of energy embedded in food consumed in the
EU-27 is related to the agricultural phase (including livestock breeding and the
management of agricultural waste) followed by more than a quarter related to industrial
processing. It is also important to mention that industrial processing, logistics and
packaging together account for almost half of all the energy involved (see also Chapter 3
for further discussion.)
Moreover, according to Figure 1.8, about 60 % of the energy embodied in European food
derives from agriculture and logistics, two sectors largely dominated by fossil fuels in
which the penetration of renewable energies is still relatively small (see 2.1 and 3.3 for
further details)
Figure 1.9 Energy embedded in the food consumed by the average EU-27 citizen in
2013, detailed per energy source (left) compared to the overall EU-27 energy
consumption mix in 2013 (right). Source: Authors’ own analysis and Eurostat.
Consistently, about 80 % of the total energy associated with the entire food life cycle
originates from fossil fuels (Figure 1.9 left-hand side), while all renewable energy
sources account for 7.1 %. The overall EU-27 energy consumption mix in 2013 (Figure
1.9 — right-hand side) shows a RE share around 15 % and a 72 % contribution from
fossil fuels. Thus, while the EU has made important progress in incorporating renewable
energy across the economy, the share of renewables in the food system remains
relatively small. Possible solutions and pathways for improvement will be discussed in
the next chapters and in particular in 2.4 and 3.2.
It is worth mentioning that not all energy associated with the food supply chain is
generated within the EU borders, as relevant amounts of food and food ingredients are
imported from outside the EU (see 3.3.1).
Finally, it has to be reminded that results discussed here represent the average
consumption of the average product by the average citizen. Specific results are known to
be extremely variable. As an example Appendix 0 summarises the LCA study of 21 types
of bread produced in different EU countries: the products, equally called ‘bread’, embed
an amount of energy ranging from 9 MJ/kg up to 37 MJ/kg, to be compared with the
value of 16.1 MJ/kg of the average bread included in the JRC food basket.
1.4.2 GHG emissions along the EU-27 food supply chain
GHG emissions from the JRC food basket have been also extrapolated to the whole food
consumption in EU-27 in 2013 following the same procedure described in 1.4.1
28
Food consumption in 2013 has led the average EU citizen to emit 2 965 kg of CO2e,
which is roughly equivalent to the emissions from travelling about 22 800 km by car (
8
).
Figure 1.10 illustrates how these emissions are split by supply chain production steps,
revealing once again that the agricultural production phase, including animal rearing,
accounts for the highest overall share of the food related GHG emissions (67.3 %).
Figure 1.10 GHG emissions caused by the food consumed by the average EU-27
citizen in 2013, detailed per food production step. Units: kgCO2e. Source: Authors’
own analysis.
The same limitations described in the case of embedded energy hold for GHG emissions
estimate: results refer to average products, behaviours and consumption patterns.
Nevertheless, the predominant role of agriculture is evident in both the case of
embedded energy and GHG emissions. European farmers are aware of such a relatively
high impact of their sector and are leading the way in the transition to a better energy
use their daily work. Challenges and solutions for improving the energy use and the
energy quality in agriculture will be the subject of next chapter.
(
8
) The current target value of 130 g CO2e/km for new cars was considered.
29
2. Energy-related challenges and solutions in food
production — behind the farm gate
Agriculture and livestock are responsible for 33.4 % of the energy embedded in food
consumed in the EU (Chapter 1), the largest contributing sector. Also because of an
even higher share of agriculture-related GHG emissions (see Figure 1.10), the issue of
agriculture decarbonisation has been very relevant in the scientific and policy debate in
Europe in the last decades. This chapter provides a general picture of the state of the art
and trends on energy use in the EU’s agriculture sector and then discusses the main
solutions for both decreasing energy consumption and increasing renewable energy
shares. Examples from EU research programmes will complement the chapter.
2.1 Energy use in agriculture, livestock and aquaculture — the
current situation and recent trends
The direct energy consumption of the EU agriculture sector amounted to 23.9 Mtoe
(Eurostat, 2014a) in 2013, equivalent to 2.2% of EU's final energy consumption in the
same year. On a national basis, direct energy consumed in agriculture accounted for a
share of between 1 % and 6 % of the final energy consumption. In 2013, the direct
energy mix for agriculture was largely dominated by fossil fuels, with oil and gas
together accounting for almost 70 % , electricity for 16 % and renewables for 8 % The
renewables share steadily increased in the last decades from the 1990 value of 2 % (
9
).
Figure 2.1 shows the current energy mix for agriculture sector in the EU-28 in absolute
(top panel) and relative (bottom panel) terms (Eurostat, 2014a).
(
9
) On top of the direct renewable energy use, it has to be considered that the cited 15 % contribution from
electricity also partially derives from renewable sources, depending on the electricity mix evolution.
30
Figure 2.1: Direct energy use in the agriculture sector in the EU-28 in absolute (top
panel) and relative (bottom panel) terms in 2013 (Eurostat, 2014a). NB: Data missing
for Germany.
Figure 2.2 shows that both the total direct energy consumption and direct energy
consumption per cultivated hectare have decreased since 1990. A general decadal trend
towards a more efficient agriculture production is well visible in Europe, at least as far as
direct energy consumption is concerned.
Figure 2.2 Evolution of direct energy use in the agriculture sector (left — million
tonnes of oil equivalent), cultivated area (middle — millions hectares) and direct
energy consumption per unit of cultivated area (right — kilograms of oil
equivalent/hectare) in the EU-27 in the 1990-2010 period (Eurostat, 2014a).
Nevertheless, Gołaszewski et al. (2012) pointed out as these numbers only partially
reflect the actual energy amount consumed, and several inputs are not fully allocated to
the agriculture sector’s energy statistics.
31
As an example, DEFRA estimated that in the United Kingdom and for the period 2003 –
2007, the agriculture sector consumed 2.5 times more energy indirectly than as direct
energy (DEFRA, 2008). More precisely, in 2007, the most recent year for which such an
analysis is available, the direct energy consumption in agriculture amounted to 839 ktoe,
while 1 053 ktoe and 321 ktoe were consumed respectively for fertiliser and pesticide
production, 503 ktoe for animal feed and 373 ktoe for tractors and other agricultural
machinery construction.
A recent study of the US agriculture sector (Beckman, Borchers and Jones, 2013) has
shown that indirect energy inputs account for about one half of the direct energy use,
with fertilisers and pesticides accounting for roughly 60 % and 40 % of the indirect
energy share, respectively. Pelletier et al. (2011) report the general result of indirect
energy being usually larger than direct energy in intensive agriculture systems.
For Europe, an exhaustive study with detailed direct and indirect energy flows in
agriculture is not available, but a dedicated study by Gołaszewski et al. (2012) following
a LCA-like approach has provided results for six European countries and several kinds of
crops and livestock (see Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.3 Direct and indirect energy input for four crops in different European countries.
Absolute values in GJ/t of crop. Source: (Gołaszewski et al., 2012).
32
Figure 2.4 Direct and indirect energy input for three livestock categories in different European
countries. Absolute values in GJ/t of product. Source: (Gołaszewski et al., 2012)
2.2 Realising energy efficiency in agriculture
Farmers are usually keen to improve energy efficiency and to save energy in order to
decrease their operational costs. Besides, above a certain threshold, increased energy
consumption does not necessarily translate into immediate yield benefits. Woods et al.
(2010) have demonstrated the overall nonlinear relationship between energy inputs and
crop yield, with saturation effects for high energy inputs. Nevertheless, energy remains a
crucial input for cultivation success: Woods et al. (2010) have also shown that an energy
input too small can lead to very low yields and then, perversely, to an overall higher
energy demand per tonne of harvested product. The proper balance has to be found on a
case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the peculiarities of each farm and
cultivation system. The following sections illustrate key avenues which can be followed to
improve energy efficiency in different aspects (
10
) throughout the value chain.
2.2.1 Optimising fertiliser production
Pelletier et al. (2011), DEFRA (2008) and several other studies identified fertilisers as a
key issue in indirect agricultural energy flows. Ramírez and Worrel (2006) estimated that
in 2001 the energy embedded in the global fertiliser consumption amounted to about 3
600 petajoule (PJ), i.e. about 1 % of the global energy demand. The major share of this
energy, about 72 %, was needed for the production of nitrogen fertilisers. Besides, the
nitrogen fertiliser industry uses fossil fuels not only as an energy source but also as a
raw material: ammonia synthesis requires hydrogen gas, currently produced using
natural gas, thus absorbing 3-5 % of the world’s natural gas production.
(
10
) For a more detailed review of best practices which can be implemented in the Agricultural sector in
particular to improve energy efficiency, please refer to the Best Practice report developed by the Joint
Research Centre for the Agriculture (Crop and Animal Production) sector; more information available at
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/emas/agri.html
33
According to Fertilizers Europe (2014), the production of nitrogen-based fertilisers
commonly used in Europe requires 10-14 MJ/kg, depending on the actual product with a
peak of 23 MJ/kg for urea, a fertiliser very rich in nitrate. On the contrary, potash and
phosphorus fertilisers are currently produced with 3 MJ/kg and 0.2 MJ/kg, respectively.
If the energy spent is referenced to the nutrient content, the differences become even
more evident: nitrate fertilisers need 40-50 MJ per kg of nutrient, while potash and
phosphorus fertilisers require 5 and 0.35 MJ per kg of nutrient, respectively. On
average, nitrogen fertiliser production is ten times more energy-intensive than
phosphorus and potassium fertilisers (Khan & Hanjra, 2009) and largely exceeds the
energy requested for the actual field application of fertilisers.
Even if the energy cost of fertiliser production has declined by a factor of five in the last
century (Woods et al., 2010), fertilisers are still a relevant energy-demanding aspect of
modern agriculture. Again according to Fertilizers Europe (2014), improved fertiliser
production technology — high-energy efficiency, nitrous oxide decomposition (de-N2O)
catalysts — combined with the best agricultural management practices still enables a
significant reduction in the carbon and energy footprint of crop production.
From the point of view of production, according to Ramírez and Worrel (2006), the full
application of best available techniques (BAT) guidelines (see Chapter 4) in the fertiliser
industry worldwide will lead to a decrease in the energy embedded in fertilisers of 19 %
globally. Supply volume effects and the competitive advantage of technical
improvements will also decrease energy consumption in fertiliser production. However,
physical limits exist: the energy embedded in nitrogen fertilisers cannot be lower than
about 24 MJ/kg nutrient (see again Ramírez & Worrell, 2006). For this reason, in the
long term, avoiding unnecessary fertiliser applications through properly designed
cultivation practices will be the most effective strategy.
2.2.2 Energy saving cultivation practices
In heavily mechanised agriculture systems, machinery use is an important direct energy
consumer. Farm mechanisation includes tractors, equipment for cultivation and planting,
and harvesters, together with machinery and equipment used for irrigation, livestock
production, grain drying and storage.
The Conservation Agriculture (CA) concept (FAO, 2013c, 2015b) aims at reducing the
energy and environmental burden related to farm mechanisation, fertiliser applications
and other energy intensive practices.CA includes several significant changes in farming
practices such as conservational tillage or no-till planting practices (
11
) (Ashworth,
Desbiolles and Tola, 2010; Baker et al., 2006; Derpsch and Friedrich, 2009), integrated
pest management (
12
), plant nutrient management (EurAgEng, 2010), weed and water
precision farming (Sims, 2011), and controlled traffic farming (EurAgEng, 2010).
(
11
) In no-tillage practices seeders need to penetrate surface organic mulch and deposit the seed and fertiliser
at the correct depth.
(
12
) As an example, AAB (2010) reports that about 50 % of all pesticides applied in traditional agriculture do
not reach the intended target.
34
Figure 2.5 Share of arable land for which conservation tillage (top panel) or no-tillage
(bottom panel) practices were applied in 2010. Data for NUTS-2 regions. Source:
(Eurostat, 2015).
35
Several actions included in CA result in consistent energy savings, especially in the case
of tillage systems. For instance, Mileusnic et al. (2010) have measured a decrease in
tractor fuel consumption ranging between 40 % and 60 % when comparing each other
traditional, limited and no-tillage corn and wheat cultivations in Serbia.
According to the FAO (2013c), the adoption of the CA concept could result in a further
carbon sequestration into the soil at the rate of about 0.5 t/ha/year, could reduce the
labour and energy requirements by about 50 % and could lead to noticeable fuel and
machinery cost savings. Globally, in 2010 about 117 million ha out of a total of 1 390
million ha of arable land were cultivated under CA approach, with some farms already
practising it for over 30 years. Over the past 20 years, the global rate of transformation
from tillage-based farming to CA has been some 5.3 million hectares per annum,
increasing in the last decade to 6 million ha/year (FAO, 2013c).
Integrated Arable Farming Systems (IAFS) also contribute to evident energy savings
(Bailey et al., 2003). IAFS include several concurrent measures known to reduce
agronomic inputs (conservation tillage, use of disease-resistant cultivars, rational use of
pesticides, target application of nutrients) and to diversify crops (shift from intensive
monoculture to crop rotation, promotion of biodiversity through the management of field
margins and non-agricultural vegetation) (Alluvione, Moretti, Sacco and Grignani, 2011).
IAFS have proved effective in decreasing both direct and indirect energy inputs, but the
actual amount of energy savings varies notably. For instance, Bailey et al. (2003) have
compared four different rotations (involving wheat, potatoes, oilseed rape and other
crops) in six UK locations: for some, energy savings reached up to 8 %, while others
have shown very little or no energy improvements at all. In another context, IAFS and
low-input (LI) integrated farming were compared on the field with conventional
production in a wheat-maize-soybean-maize rotation in Northern Italy (Alluvione et al.,
2011). In this case, energy savings exceeded 30 %, especially thanks to decreased
fertilisation rates, balanced crop-nutrient removal and the adoption of minimum tillage.
Several studies have compared the energy consumption of organic crop production to
integrated and conventional agriculture, targeting different areas and products. For
example, Zafiriou et al. (2012), Michos et al. (2012) and Kavargiris et al. (2009) have
analysed differences in energy input between conventional, integrated and organic
farming in Greece for asparagus, peach orchards and vineyards. In two of three cases
(peach and vineyards), organic farming has shown energy advantages, while for
asparagus the differences were not statistically significant. Pimentel (2006) also found
that in the case of organic corn production fossil energy inputs per unit of energy output
were 31 % lower than conventional production, and 17 % lower in the case of organic
soybean production.
As a general rule, organic farming appears to be significantly better from the energy
point of view (Alonso and Guzmán, 2010; Gomiero, Paoletti and Pimentel, 2008), mainly
because of a different approach to fertiliser use. However, exceptions are found across
geographical areas and crops (see for example Astier et al., 2014). The lower yields
obtained by organic crop production can result, in some cases, in a negative impact on
the energy use per tonne of product.
Eurostat and DG AGRI (2013) declare that the share of arable land subject to organic
cultivation is steadily increasing, from 3 % in 2003 to 5.2 % in 2010 in the EU, although
it is quite unevenly geographically distributed (see Figure 2.6).
36
Figure 2.6 Share of organic farming on arable land in 2010. Data for NUTS-2 regions.
UAA: utilised agricultural area. Source: (Eurostat — DG AGRI, 2013).
2.2.3 Further improving water use
Water use in agriculture is crucial. This sector globally accounts for almost 70 % of the
water withdrawals (FAO 2013) and many crops require intensive irrigation. Animal
products, and especially beef, are particularly water demanding: for instance, the
production of one kilogram of beef requires more than 15 000 litres of water (Hoekstra,
Chapagain, Aldaya and Mekonnen, 2011; Pimentel et al., 1997), including water
indirectly consumed through animal forages and grain intakes (see Box 2 on the water-
food-energy nexus for more detail). Irrigation needs can change considerably from one
year to another, depending on weather conditions, and largely differ in different climate
areas.
In the case of Europe, Figure 2.7 shows the amount of irrigation withdrawal per
cultivated hectare in three recent periods for the EU Member States for which at least
two sets of water consumption data were available. Regional differences are evident and,
although a decreasing trend could be observed for the majority of countries, a clear
tendency towards an increasingly efficient irrigation water use is far from evident.
Intensive need for water provisions implies important energy needs, especially for
irrigation but studies have shown that improvements in the irrigation systems could lead
to important energy savings. For instance, optimising pump sizes to take into
consideration the peak (two to three months per year) and off-peak water requirements
can be an effective measure: Moreno et al. (2009) have developed a methodology to
estimate features and efficiency curves of optimal pumping stations, while up to 35 %
energy savings in irrigation systems have been reported by Jiménez-Bello et al. (2010)
and by Moreno et al. (2010) after an irrigation plan rotating among two or more sectors
of the irrigated area, was put in place in a test area.
37
Figure 2.7 Irrigation water withdrawals per unit of cultivated area in 18 EU Member
States in the period 1998-2012. Units in m3/ha/year. Data from AQUASTAT(FAO,
2015a).
Even so, the existence of important trade-offs between water savings and energy
efficiencies have been reported, for example by Rodrigues-Diaz et al. (2011). In the case
discussed, an agricultural district in Andalusia, the energy needs and its costs boosted
after the modernisation of the irrigation systems from a traditional open channel network
to a more water-efficient, on-demand pressurised system. Although the amount of water
withdrawn for irrigation to farms was considerably reduced, the maintenance costs
increased up to 400 %. The new pumping pressurized systems caused higher energy
needs that the previous gravity – based systems.
Again, in arid or semi-arid areas, diversification of water sources is often considered a
viable solution for assuring a more continuous water supply. But even this measure does
not necessarily end up with a better energy profile. As an example, Martin-Gorriz et
al.(2014) demonstrated that the use of desalinated seawater for irrigating the highly
water-stressed areas in Southern Spain is expected to lead to a substantial increase in
the overall energy content of the products.
Finally, Diotto et al. (2014) also investigated the energy embodied in the irrigation
equipment, considering both surface pivot and drip systems. Starting from the Australian
test case developed by Jacobs (2006), a full model was developed, allowing the
comparison of the irrigation systems under a wide range of surrounding conditions.
2.2.4 Better livestock feeding
High-quality proteins and nutrients provided by livestock come at the price of a much
higher energy embodied in comparison with crop products (see also Chapter 1).
According to Woods et al. (2010), animal feed accounts for a share of between 70 % and
90 % of the total energy embedded in the raw livestock products, while the rest reflects
the energy spent on animal husbandry. In this situation, energy-efficiency measures
must target feed crop production: improving feed conversion efficiency and avoiding
wastage are the main ones. Clearly, energy-saving measures applied in agriculture will
positively impact the energy content of livestock products too. Moreover, some
additional strategies have been proved to be useful, such as the use of organic residues
in the form of biogas to close the energy cycle in stables and farms. This will be
discussed in further detail in section 2.4.
38
2.3 Fishery and aquaculture
The energy consumed in the fishery sector (including aquaculture) amounted to 45 PJ in
the EU-28 in 2012, equivalent to almost 5 % of the direct energy consumed in the
agriculture sector in the same year. The fishery sector has suffered a constant shrinkage
in the last decades and Eurostat (2014b) reports a total catch of 4.4 million tonnes in
the EU for 2012, equivalent to just 60 % of the total catch in 1995.
Even so, the EU fishery fleet is still very important, with a total gross tonnage of 1.64
million tonnes and about 82 000 ships. Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Netherlands and
Portugal have fishing fleets larger than 100 000 gross tonnage and altogether provide
60 % of the EU-28’s fleet.
Tyedmers (2004) estimated that direct fuel energy inputs typically accounts for between
75 % and 90 % of the energy use in the sector and it is largely provided by fossil fuels.
Tyedmers (2004) also evidences the energy use per unit of catches is increasing over
time. Possible causes are the decrease in abundance of the closest targeted fisheries
resources, pushing fleets to longer travels and the increase in the size, power and
technical sophistication of fishing vessels. Even though, fishery products remain very
competitive in terms of embodied energy per calories provided when compared with, for
example, meat. It is also worth noticing that besides the energy directly employed for
vessel movements, an important share of energy provided by fules (in some cases
reaching 40 %) is commonly employed for jigging and freezing the catches directly on
board as a pre-processing step of the food production chain (see again Tyedmers, 2004).
Box 2 — The food-water nexus and its
energy implications
The food-water nexus and its energy
implications has become an important topic at
the same time for research, for the
international, national and regional
organisations/agencies, and for all the players
in the water and energy fields (both private
and public, operators and stakeholders).
Water, energy and food are essential for
human well-being and sustainable
development. Global projections generally
indicate that the demand for freshwater
(surface water and ground water), energy and
food will increase significantly over the next
decades due to population growth, economic
development, international trade,
urbanisation, diversification of diets (e.g.
more meat consumption means more water
use), cultural/technological changes and
climate change.
According to the FAO (2014), agriculture
presently uses 70 % of total global freshwater
withdrawals and is the largest user of water.
Water is used for agriculture production and
along the entire agri-food chain. The food
production and supply chain consumes about
30 % of total global energy (FAO 2011a).
Energy is required to produce, transport and
distribute food, as well as to extract, pump,
lift, collect, transport and treat water. Cities,
industry and other sectors, such as tourism,
use more and more water, energy and land
resources. This is associated with problems of
environmental degradation, competition for
water and in some cases, resource scarcity.
As demand grows, there is increasing
competition over natural resources between
agriculture, fisheries, livestock, forestry,
mining, transport and other sectors, with
impacts on livelihoods and the environment
that are sometimes difficult to predict.
This situation is expected to become more
problematic in the future as it is estimated
that 60 % more food will need to be produced
in order to feed the world in 2050. In
addition, global energy consumption is
projected to grow by up to 50 % by 2035
(IEA 2010). Total global water withdrawals for
irrigation are projected to increase by 10 %
by 2050 (FAO, 2011b).
As an example to illustrate the complexity of
the water-food-energy nexus, especially in
some tropical countries where large dams are
still being built, large-scale water
infrastructure projects may have positive
impacts, producing hydropower and providing
water storage for irrigation and urban uses.
But these might come at the expense of
downstream ecosystems and agricultural
systems, and with social implications such as
resettlement. In the same way, growing
bioenergy crops or biomass in an irrigated
agriculture scheme may improve the energy
supply, but may also result in increased
competition for land and water resources and
present risks to food production. At the global
level as well as in the EU, there are thus links
between water, food and energy that may
39
sometimes result in synergies, but also in
conflicts and in the necessity of trade-offs
between different sectors or interest groups.
For example, in Asia, the Green Revolution
and the introduction of groundwater pumps
have transformed irrigated agriculture and
became a key factor in the food security of
countries such as India, Pakistan and China.
However, groundwater pumping has
accelerated the depletion of water resources
and aquifers. Food production has become
increasingly vulnerable to energy prices, often
resulting in the farmers’ dependency on
energy subsidies or public support
mechanisms. At the same time, farmers
sometimes have no other option than to
pump water, since services provided by public
irrigation agencies are often of poor quality
and may prioritise energy production. The
solution commonly proposed is to revise tariff
and metering systems and to improve the
pumps’ technical efficiency. Regarding this
issue, a nexus perspective can help us to
understand the wider implications for water,
energy and food, and broaden the scope of
interventions to include: water demand
management, investment frameworks to
publicly fund improved surface irrigation,
groundwater management, irrigation
technologies and agricultural practices, as
well as food procurement and trade policies.
These interventions are likely to have an
impact on the drivers and pressures that have
led initially to over-pumping. Water pricing is
an essential component of water and energy
policies, both in the EU and elsewhere.
In this general context, the water-energy-
food nexus has emerged as a key concept to
describe the complex and interrelated nature
of our global resource systems on which we
depend to achieve different, often competing
development goals. In practical terms, it
offers a coherent approach to natural
resource management, taking into account
social, economic and environmental goals.
Food-water-energy nexus interactions are
complex and dynamic and cannot be studied
in isolation due to the variety of objectives,
drivers and local conditions.
Even if it is obvious that, in the EU, water,
food and energy has to be assessed at
national, regional and the watershed level and
that there are huge variations in the
quantification of the starting point (for
example, between EU Member States such as
Ireland and the United Kingdom on one side,
Cyprus and Malta on the other side, and in
between regions such as Andalusia and
Central Finland), a water-energy-food nexus
approach allows:
• a description of interactions about how
we use and manage resource systems,
describing interdependencies, constraints
and synergies;
• the development of the capacity to
identify, assess and analyse food-water-
energy nexus interactions and the
implications that any change — policy
decisions, large-scale investments or
changes in agricultural practices — may
have beyond the intended objective and
scale;
• a prioritisation of response options.
In addition to the inclusion of a broader
process of stakeholder dialogue, the overall
approach should include data analysis,
scenario development and response options
with the corresponding impact analysis.
Regarding the EU’s food imports and exports,
the analysis of the food sector links with
water and energy should consider not only the
water footprint of EU-made food products but
also of food products imported into the EU.
References
— FAO (2014), ‘The Water-Energy-Food
Nexus at FAO’, Concept Note, FAO, May 2014.
— FAO (2011a), ‘Energy-Smart’ Food for
People and Climate, (Issue Paper), (p. 78).
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO), Rome, 2011, p. 78.
Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2454e/i2454
e00.pdf
— FAO (2011b), The state of the world’s land
and water resources for food and agriculture
(SOLAW) — Managing systems at risk, Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the