Download Climate Change in Value Chain Development

Climate Change in Value Chain Development
Conceptual Ideas on Mitigation and Adaptation Based on Experiences in the Tea, Passion
Fruit and Energy Saving Stove Value Chains in Kenya
By: Krain, E. 1, Mavrakis, E., Mohamud, M., Wanjohi, P., and A. Ingwe
0. Abstract
Climate change has a significant impact on Kenya’s agriculture and the two investigated agricultural
value chains, tea and passion fruit. Especially tea, a high altitude crop of 2000 m and above and Kenya’s
agricultural number one export earner is about to lose out, simply because the amount of high-lying
land is very limited. However, other crops will step into the altitude position that will be left vacant by
tea. Passion fruit is such a crop and a potential winner and it is economically very attractive, too.
Looking into value chains and possibilities of mitigation, i.e. contributing to reducing the emissions of
green house gases, also here a lot of scope can be identified. In all stages of the value chain from input
supply to primary production and all further transformation stages up to consumption there are options
to decrease CO2 emissions. In contrast to non-agricultural value chains, agricultural ones can even
capture CO2 by raising the levels of removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions. However, these
alternatives may not be economical at all or economical at this time. The use of carbon credits such as
the Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) developed under the Kyoto protocol, i.e. compensating
farmers or foresters for certain ways of cultivation that increase CO2 sequestration and decrease
emissions, is one way of providing an incentive. The development of payment systems – or “carbon
credits” measured as “carbon footprints” – for reducing carbon emissions is very much in its beginning
as far as agriculture and small-scale agriculture in particular are concerned. Unfortunately the famous
CO2 footprint is a rather literal elusive “print” and – as it is a gas – difficult to really get hold of.
Mountains of procedures, figures, coefficients, protocols and certifications need first to be developed
until it becomes feasible to devise practical ways in measuring and then effecting positive changes,
particularly, in small-holder agriculture which is generally highly diverse.
Economically more attractive are carbon credits when investing directly into energy saving technology.
Energy saving stoves developed by PSDA in Kenya reduce CO2 emissions by about 2 t per household per
year. Assuming again 5 US $ per tonne reduced CO2 emissions, this would result in a CDM earning of 10
US $ or 800 KES. This is very attractive since the investment for an energy saving stove is between 500
and 1000 KES and moreover, the additionally saved firewood would be the main incentive anyhow.
Concluding from the aforementioned, it appears that most of the responses to climate change in smallholder agriculture in a developing country such as Kenya are likely to go into the direction of adaptation,
less so towards mitigation. However, when directly investing in energy saving technologies like into
stoves, mitigation has a big scope.
1
Contact: Promotion of Private Sector Development in Agriculture (PSDA), German Technical Cooperation (GTZ),
P.O.Box 41604, Nairobi 00100, Kenya, March 2010; [email protected]
1
1. Background
Environmental changes due to climate change have become more and more obvious during recent
years. We are now at the point that effects on the environment and on life at large are so pronounced
and alarming that climate change cannot be ignored anymore and that apart from grand political
negotiations, every organization and even individuals have to look into the matter and design ways on
how to deal with it.
Each individual and organization has different requirements and opportunities to respond to climate
change effects and impacts. The Promotion of Private Sector Development in Agriculture (PSDA), Kenya,
a bilateral development program undertaken by the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and the
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) on behalf of the German and the Kenyan Government, respectively,
support agricultural development through a value chain approach. In a value chain approach one looks
at one particular agricultural commodity from input supply, to primary production, transport,
processing, trade and finally consumption and tries to improve the market orientation and efficiency of
production and flow of the produce from “farm to fork”, i.e. from the start of the production over to all
transformation stages to consumption. In this respect the following two questions have been posed: In
which way is a value chain affected by climate change? And how can the different stages and processes
of a value chain be organized so that they respond positively to or even contribute to a decrease of
negative consequences from climate change?
Two of the authors, one student from Germany and one from Kenya, under the guidance of an expert of
the program have been engaged in an internship in PSDA from February to September 2009. They have
been looking at the general context of climate change in the world, then particularly at Kenya and finally
zeroed in at two particular value chains: tea and passion fruit. On the basis of data collected by them in
the field and in literature, a generic model has been developed on how climate change can be
conceptualized in a value chain development approach and how it could be dealt with.
2. Methodology
The main part of the work was done by two mentioned interns: Elisabeth Mavrakis, a student of
Landscape Ecology of the University of Münster, Germany, who was engaged from April to July 2009,
and Muna M. Muhamud, a student of Environmental Studies and Community Development who worked
from April to October 2009 in the project. They both worked together, Elisabeth Mavrakis with a focus
on the tea value chain and Muna Mohamud on the passion fruit value chain.
The geographical location of the field sites for the tea value chain was at KTDA Michimikuru tea factory
located Nyambene Hills, Tigania District, Eastern Province, while the passion fruit value chain field case
study was carried out in Bungoma District, Western Province.
The research work entailed gathering secondary data from collected literature and the internet. Primary
data collection consisted of interviewing experts and farmers as well as farmer groups.
2
Also some field soil tests and laboratory analyses were done in the tea value chain, however, the
analyses were not conclusive.
Primary data were also used from the energy saving sub-component of PSDA, especially those on
firewood consumption of energy saving stoves in comparison with the three-stone fireplace.
3. The Impact of Climate Change in Kenya and East Africa
Climate change is a minute change over years and only well measurable and noticeable over decades.
The change is usually expressed in an increase of temperature and different quantities and patterns of
rainfall. The cause for climate change has mainly been associated with a world-wide increase of burning
of fossil fuels, the release of CO2 as the main important Green House Gas and a global warming of the
atmosphere. In Kenya, due to climate change, an increase of temperature by 0.5oC and an uplifting of
thermal belts and thus agro-ecological zones by about 90 m have been observed over the last 20 to 25
years (JAETZOLD et al., 2007; and JAETZOLD, 2009). This has brought about several major impacts.
Temperatures are further expected to rise by about 3-4 oC, this being 1.5 times more than the projected
global means (SEITZ and NYANGENA, 2009).
One of the major impacts has been an increase of the occurrence of extreme weather events. Especially
the incidence of droughts has increased and added to the risks of agricultural production.
Table 1: Disaster Trends Between 1971-2003
Source: National Policy on Disaster Management
3
A second feature has been that high altitude crops get more limited in terms of the area available for
their cultivation, simply because highland areas are scarce. Especially tea, a crop grown at 2000 m and
above, and the agricultural export earner of Kenya, is already experiencing reductions in area. Other
economically important highland crops like coffee and wheat will also progressively lose out (JAETZOLD et
al., 2007; SEITZ and NYANGENA, 2009). However, other crops better suited to lower altitudes will step in.
And this is not always economically worse. For example passion fruit, or on a much lower altitude level
mango, can be grown instead. Thus the possible outcome is mixed, changes may not always necessarily
be economically negative. There are threats and opportunities. Overall the changes are mixed as far as
crop production is concerned, for livestock production even an increase is expected. However, forests,
already being reduced very much will be further depleted and biodiversity reduced. Because of higher
temperatures, certain diseases (e.g. Malaria) are already and will further spread into highlands, which
were hitherto free from such diseases (SEITZ and NYANGENA, 2009).
4. Climate Change Effects Observed in the Tea and Passion Fruit Value Chain
4.1 Tea Value Chain 2
4.1.1 Climate Change Impact on the Tea Industry in Kenya
Tea is a perennial evergreen under-storey shrub managed intensively for continuous growth of young
shoots. The plant depends on high and evenly distributed annual rainfall of at least 1,500 mm and a dry
season of not more than three months and optimum temperatures around 25°C, soil temperatures
(30cm depths) are tolerated only until 16°C. In Kenya, tea (Camellia sinensis L.) grows over to 2,200 m
above sea level. It is cultivated on a wide range of soils of different geological origin ranging from sandy
loam to clay texture, but with specific characteristics like acidity (pH = 4,0 - 6,0) met by a particular type.
Most of them are highly weathered and leached with moisture throughout the year, physical
requirements of the tea plant is a deep and well drained soil with a minimum of two metres depth as
well as an aggregated or crump structure with about 50% pore volume.
Kenya is the second largest exporter of tea world-wide and since tea exports account for roughly 25% of
Kenya’s export earnings and employ about 3 million Kenyans (10%) of the population, the impact could
be tremendous (W. SCHUETZ et al.).
Kenyan small scale tea farmers face several threats as their source of livelihood might be disrupted by
climate change. Increasing temperatures will definitely affect tea. Tea cultivation in Kenya depends on
2
Based on internship work by Elisabeth Mavrakis, amended by Mary Ng’endo
4
cool high altitude (~ ≥ 2000 m) temperatures and even rainfall in order to maintain its soil moisture level
(1200 mm per annum is considered essential), furthermore, the rainfall distribution is more important,
and with droughts, 20 % of the tea crop is lost, and crops fail to yield, which leads to food shortage and
translates to more poverty. The high vulnerability for climate impacts are due to their dependence on
tea as a monoculture, and extremely high deforestation rates leading to degraded lands and eroded
soils. The most threatening risks are modification of precipitation, prolonged droughts, and increased
extreme weather events. Farmers are struggling with water shortage, malnutrition and climate
variability, resulting in loss of yields and income. The decreasing yields are due to the loss of soil fertility
because of the monocultures in cultivation. The general predictions for tea cultivation are depicted in
the following graph. From this it is evident that the tea growing area will be reduced tremendously if
climate change occurs according to the predictions. Some traditional tea growing areas will be left
completely without tea growing.
Figure 1: Impact of temperature rise on the suitability of tea- growing areas in Kenya
Source: SIMONETTE (1989)
4.1.2 Climate Change Impact Reported By Small-holder Tea Farmers
To investigate about the special problems the tea small holders are facing, interviews were held with
various stakeholders including several farmer groups of Meru District. Small holders in the area are
drastically affected by impacts of climate change, such as harvest losses, food shortages, malnutrition
and hunger, as the traditional main crops such as millet, finger millet, sorghum, yams and sweet
5
potatoes don’t grow well and are no longer economically viable. Apart from possible effects of climate
change also negative anthropogenic changes were observed such as heavy land degradation,
deforestation, heavy firewood extraction. More water taking exotic trees such as Eucalyptus have
replaced indigenous species such as the Meru oak (Vitex keniensis) or the Moringa (Moringa oleifera).
Biodiversity, soil fertility and water amounts have decreased by up to 50 %, and environmental
degradation has steadily increased. All interviewees confirmed significant changes since the 1980s,
noting that water amounts and reliability of rains have decreased drastically, precipitation frequency is
much more erratic, and farmers face extreme weather events more frequently, such as sudden heats
and colds, storms and droughts. Erratic storms result in erosion and landslides , washing out of already
exhausted soil and hence necessitating application of much more fertilizers. The average annual
temperature has increased, causing withering of crops and making irrigation necessary in some places.
Climate change also increases pests and diseases necessitating use of insecticides and fungicides more
than in the past. Warmer temperatures have increased the occurrence of malaria and typhoid among
other tropical diseases. The farmers don’t have access to climate information or climate risk
management tools and their adaptive capacity is very weak, as whenever drought occurs, tea
production declines and there is green leaf loss which leads to severe income reduction.
4.1.3
Carbon Footprints in the Tea Value Chain
Due to lack of own solid data, the below information on carbon footprinting was obtained from SAUER
(2010). According to Nigel Melican, Managing Director of Teacraft Ltd, the tea's carbon footprint
(measured by the number of grams of carbon dioxide per cup) can vary greatly from over 200g CO2 per
cup to -6g CO2 per cup, depending on how the tea is grown, processed, shipped, packaged, brewed, and
discarded. As a reference point, the carbon footprint of a glass of beer is 374g, a can of Coca Cola is 129g
and a cup of cow's milk is about 225g. First, the tea selection made by a tea consumer plays an
enormous role from the start. . Melican found that teabag tea has, in fact, ten times the carbon
footprint of loose tea (all other variables being equal), as such, loose tea is thus a far better choice
environmentally. Recycling or re-using tea (as well as its packaging) also improves its carbon footprint.
Loose tea often comes in minimal, recycable or re-usable containers, and this benefits the planet simply
because the packaging is often re-used and not discarded as waste. Composting tea rather than tossing
it in the trash will also be beneficial. How a tea drinker heats the water for tea also has an impact.
According to Melican, "Gas is best as there is only one conversion loss from burning the fossil fuel to
produce heat energy to raise the water temperature in the kettle. With electricity, you get five separate
6
losses: 1. turning fossil fuel into steam, 2. steam into electricity, 3. grid losses along the wires (voltage
drop), 4. transformer losses as voltage is stepped up and down, and 5. in heating the water in the
kettle." By and large the example shows that a wide range of carbon footprints are possible and there
are options available to get to a low carbon footprint.
4.2 Passion Fruit Value Chain3
4.2.1 Climate Change Impact on the Passion Fruit Industry in Kenya
Passion fruit is one of the value chains in PSDA. Its objective is to contribute to a higher profitability of
small holder agriculture with a view of creating more income and job opportunities. Interventions are
currently geared to contribute to a higher production level , but shall in future incorporate practices that
increase CO2 capture and decrease CO2 emissions along the value chain.
In Kenya passion fruit grows mainly in the areas around Thika, Muranga, Meru, Kiambu, Nyeri, Kisii,
Bungoma, Embu, Uasin Gishu and Keiyo.
There are two types of passion fruits that are recognized (PURSEGOLVE, 1987):
Passiflora edulis f. edulis is the purple passion fruit, which is the normal form, and has round or eggshaped fruits. It has a better flavor than the yellow form, especially for eating out of hand for ready
consumption. It does best at the higher altitudes of above 1800 m in the tropics and does not grow well
in the wet lowlands.
Passiflora edulis f. flavicarpa is the yellow passion fruit. It presumably originated as a mutation from the
purple passion fruit. It has somewhat larger fruits, and they are deep canary-yellow when ripe. The pulp
is rather more acid. This form is better suited to the wet tropical lowlands.
Although Kenyan passion fruit is popular in domestic and export markets, the area under production is
not big (2% of all fruit crops). About 4% of total production is exported. Nevertheless, passion fruit
accounts for about 6% of foreign exchange earnings of overall Kenyan fruit export. Although there are
some medium and large scale farms, it is predominantly grown by small scale farmers.
Opportunities for Kenyan passion fruit production and marketing are promising. As fresh fruit, Kenyan
produce is well introduced both in domestic and overseas market.
Efforts have been made through PSDA who in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, the
Horticultural Crops Development Agency (HCDA), and the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate (KEPHIS)
especially in Rift valley, Central, Eastern provinces are also assisting farmers groups in enhancing
production through the introduction of clean planting materials.
3
Based on internship work by Muna Muhamud, amended by Mary Ng’endo
7
4.2.2 Constraints on the Passion Fruit Value Chain - A Case Study in Western Kenya Region
It is now evident that effects of climate change are making themselves apparent in the country.
Temperatures have increased even during the rainy season, a strange case in Kericho where the authors
undertook investigations, unlike twenty years ago; the dry season is hotter to the extent that all the
grass dries up. This was not the case previously when all the grass would remain green even in the dry
season. The average ambient temperature in the deforested areas of Kakamega in Western Kenya
highlands for example, was 0.5 °C higher than that of forested area over a ten-month period (AFRONE et
al., 2005).
In relation to passion fruit, rainfall delay or lack of it affects its production. This is especially important
during fruit formation where a lot of water is needed. Higher temperatures do not affect the fruit to an
extent. But during the cold season, farmers reported that incidences of pests and diseases are more
frequent causing reduction in the overall crop yield production.
Since long the main problem in primary production of passion fruits consists of diseased planting
material. Despite introduction and dissemination of clean planting material from research institutions
like KARI, availability of “clean” (disease free) planting material is still limited. Furthermore the
susceptibility of the fruit to pests and diseases requires appropriate management skills which most
small-scale farmers lack. Soil fertility decline is also a problem caused by over-cultivation and
inappropriate use of fertilizer. However, these are agronomic and not really climate change related
problems.
4.2.3 Climate change impacts reported by small holder passion fruit farmers
The farmers are particularly vulnerable to climate change effects due to:
- Overdependence on rain-fed agriculture.
- Widespread poverty.
- Recurrent droughts.
- Illiteracy.
- inequitable land distribution.
Some of the climate change impacts from interviewing farmers were as follows:
- Delayed and shifts in rainfall patterns.
- Temperature variations and extreme weather conditions.
- Rivers becoming more seasonal or disappearing altogether.
- Frequency of occurrence and intensity of disasters such as droughts and floods.
- More pronounced occurrence of hailstorms.
- Resurgence of some diseases like malaria in the highlands.
- Soil fertility decline.
- Pests and diseases more frequent.
- Disappearance of traditional crops- the climate is not more suitable for them, e.g. the yam.
8
While climate change may affect passion fruit cultivation adversely – especially through the occurrence
of extreme events such as drought – a generally higher temperature pattern is not so much of a
problem. On the contrary, because of its wide altitude range, passion fruit may very well substitute
crops that may not find the right agro-ecological conditions. This is particularly the case for tea and
coffee.
5.
The Steepness of the Slope of the Up-hill Battle: the Target for Reduced Emissions of Green
House Gases in 2050
Green house gases and here especially carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels and changing land
uses have been identified as the main “culprit” or “driver” of climate change. There are several gases
making up the Green House Gas complex, however, the main important one is CO2. Carbon dioxide and
the net volume emitted (the “CO2 footprint”) constitute the most important indicator of GHG emissions.
Apart from release, CO2 can also be removed or “sequestered” from the atmosphere by green plants
through photosynthesis. It is the overall negative balance of the carbon cycle (more emission than
sequestration) that is worrying. However, it also shows the opportunity of the potential of agriculture
and forestry to be directed to the contrary (more sequestration than emissions) and thus, to revert this
process.
The current level of GHG emissions stand at about 7 tCO2eq/year/person with industrialized countries
accounting for about 16 t and developing countries 4 t. It is assumed that negative effects from climate
change can only be contained if in the long run the temperature is not rising above 2 oC. This is
associated with GHGs emissions being reduced gradually to only 2 t/year per person by 2050 (KROPP and
SCHOLZE, 2009).
9
Figure 2: Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source: PIK/MEINSHAUSEN (2007) in KROPP and SCHOLZE (2009)
Two mechanisms are available to deal with this situation: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is
understood as devising means and ways to reduce or even remove GHG emissions (“avoid the
unmanageable”), while adaptation deals with the coping mechanisms of climate change (“… and
manage the unavoidable”) (KROPP and SCHOLZE, 2009). In practice, a combination of both approaches is
pursued.
In our concrete case we shall look at both but especially at mitigation measures, in ways how emissions
of GHG can be reduced in a value chain or how CO2 can even be withdrawn from the atmosphere
through growing of crops that either contribute to the CO2 stock that remains for some time within the
crop (e.g. a tree crop) or can be stocked in the soil. Mitigation measures will indeed be the main matter
to look at for us, since, simply, adaptation would mean to change to a different commodity and thus
value chain altogether. However, adaptation is possible to some degree even within the context of one
crop or value chain, for example in moving from one variety or crop type to another that is better
adapted to warmer or hotter conditions. For instance the yellow passion fruit type (Passiflora edulis f.
flavicarpa) can be well grown in lower, warmer and more humid conditions than the purple one
(Passiflora edulis f. edulis) which is generally confined to cool tropical highlands above 1800 m.
10
6.
A Generic Model on Dealing with Climate Change in a Crop Based Value Chain
Development Approach
In a value chain one looks at the flow of a commodity from input supply to production and all further
stages of transformation until consumption. Usually a value chain developer tries to identify the
technical, economic and socio-economic bottlenecks, and then zeroes in on key intervention areas.
Now, when looking at climate change and its main driver, i.e. the net emissions of CO2, one should
consequently investigate all stages and processes of a value chain with respect to the volume of CO2
sequestered or emitted, assessing the carbon dioxide footprint and identifying options to increase CO2
capture and reduce CO2 emissions without compromising the economic competitiveness. A first generic
view on the matter shall be presented with the model in the following graph.
Figure 3:
Overview of CO2 Sequestration and Emissions in a Crop Based Value Chain
Source: own model
The white foot print in above graph shall denote that CO2 is sequestered, while the red represents an
emission. The size of the foot shall relate to the volume of CO2 of sequestration or emission,
respectively. In above example it is assumed that a lot of CO2 is captured during production and another
high amount is emitted again when the produce is consumed. In between there are emissions
connected to the other stages. In the following the various stages from input supply to consumption
shall be discussed one by one.
Input supply stage: Fertilizer is an important input in agricultural production. It is especially well known
that for the production of industrial nitrogen fertilizer a lot of energy is needed. This is less so the case
for the other major plant nutrients, phosphorus and potassium, however, these need to be transported
from the place of their origin to the farm and this might go along with quite some energy and fossil fuel
consumption. Secondly, tractor ploughing and other land preparation activities consume fuel and are
11
therefore causing heavy CO2 emissions. On the other hand nitrogen fertilizer can also be obtained
through the symbiosis of leguminous crops with Rhizobia bacteria. The bacteria are able to convert inert
nitrogen of the air into nitrogen available to plants. The energy which the Rhizobia need is taking from
the host plant which gains it through photosynthesis from sunlight and thus through a process of
sequestration. This example shows that – in this instance of nitrogen – there is an alternative option to
the utilization of fertilizer. However, if this option is also more economic or at least as economic
compared to nitrogen produced by a factory needs also to be answered, because the produce still has to
face a competitive market.
Primary production stage: The first matter that needs to be considered during primary production in
relation to carbon emission or sequestration is, if a land use change takes place at the start of the
production that is of major consequence; and if so, what kind of change. The following scenarios are
imaginable: change
a) from primary rain forest to annual crops;
b) from bush forest to annual crops;
c) from annual crops to annual crops;
d) from annual crops to agro-forestry;
e) from annual crops to forestry and from
f) bare land to forestry.
It is evident that in the scenarios from a) to b) where a lot of land clearing is involved a lot of biomass
will get lost and CO2 be released into the atmosphere. Secondly it is clear that in scenario a) more
biomass will be emitted as CO2 into the atmosphere than in the case of b), thus the red footprint for the
volume of emissions will be bigger. The reverse can be assumed for the scenarios d) to f) where woody
perennial plants will be grown instead of seasonal or annual crops and thus biomass and with it CO2
accumulated and thus withdrawn from the atmosphere. Here the white footprint for sequestered CO2
would be bigger from scenario d) to f). For scenario c), i.e. from annual to annual crop hardly any change
can be expected though different annual or seasonal crops may also have a different impact on emission
and sequestration as is especially true for leguminous crops versus non-leguminous crops.
How much CO2 is sequestered or emitted during a land use change still needs to be established for the
many various scenarios, however, some rule of thumb figures are available in some cases. For instance,
for a change from forest to cropland in Mozambique (possibly similar to conditions in Kenya, for which
no data have been found yet), SINDEN (2008) provides a figure of 24 t CO2/ha/yr that is emitted. Some
figures are also available for the reverse, for calculating biomass getting stocked when e.g. growing
trees. KARANI (2004, based on WOEMER 2003 and FAO, 1997) provides constants and coefficients for
calculating biomass sequestered calculating the circumference of trees at breast height and undertaking
computations under different growth scenarios of precipitation for above and below ground biomass
plus annual leaf drop and fine root turnover.
During the vegetation plants are differently able to sequester CO2. The worst are of course again the
seasonal and annual crops, the best, forest plants, and others in between. KERKHOFFS and REID (2007) e.g.
12
estimate that forest trees are able to sequester about 4 times more biomass than vigorous fruit tree
orchards in New Zealand.
Apart from the land use change during initial cultivation one may go further in-depth into the various
land preparation and cultivation practices. It can be easily understood that tractor ploughing will emit
much more CO2 than oxen-ploughing, zero-, or minimum-tillage much less than conventional tillage.
Mulching will of course retain CO2 much better in the soil than weeding and removal of all weeds.
Further inputs such as pesticides may add to CO2 emissions depending on how these pesticides were
produced and how transport intensive they are.
Finally one should look at the harvest. The harvest constitutes the CO2 that is still captured in the
biomass but that will be released during consumption and will therefore be discussed at that stage.
Transport and processing stage: In the first instance there is transport from the farm to the processor –
or in case of fresh consumption – to the market to be considered at this stage. Transport can be further
broken down into sea, road or air transport with increasing CO2 emissions per transport unit. Figures for
these different transports are already available, see for instance http://www.atmosfair.de. The
interesting case of fresh vegetables transported by air from Kenya versus European vegetables shall be
briefly discussed here. This exciting discussion took place in 2007. At that time it was argued that fresh
vegetables from Kenya being transported by air to supermarkets in UK and other European countries
were in need of lots of CO2 emissions because of being air-freighted. Later it was found out that the
carbon footprint from European vegetables was much higher overall because the vegetable production
under European conditions required green houses and artificial heating while fresh vegetables from
Kenya were produced in the open field and required a small overall carbon footprint.
Now to processing: this may involve quite a lot of CO2 emissions depending on the packaging material
that is used e.g. glass bottles or containers (a lot of energy and thus emitted CO2 is required in the
production of glass) instead of the much more environmentally friendly tetra packs. Then it depends on
the material used, for instance recycled material may be used instead of new one.
13
Figure 4: A South African Wine Company Advertising a Lower Carbon Footprint in Their Wine Packaging
in Kenya
Source: Photo, E. Krain
Trade stage: Finally there is transport from processing to the market and retail. Again this involves some
emissions of CO2 similar to the case discussed above.
Consumption stage: Here three aspects need to be discussed: the food preparation which usually needs
energy, second, the consumption of the good itself and last but not least the waste management.
Energy for food preparation is one of the highest potential ways of emitting CO2 in African households.
Well over 90% of Kenyan rural households still use the traditional three-stone fireplace which consumes
a lot of fuel wood and produces lots of smoke harming women during cooking. However, energy saving
stoves have been developed for quite some time and are successfully penetrating rural areas. From
PSDA’s own research, we know that a typical rural household of five persons annually consumes fuel
wood for cooking purposes in the range of 2.74 t firewood which translate into 10.3 t CO2.
14
Figure 5: Carbon footprint in firewood utilizing rural households in Kenya
Household (hh) with
3-Stone Fireplace
Energy Saving Stove
1.5 kg
0.9 kg
5 persons
5 persons
Firewood per hh per
day
7.5 kg
4.5 kg
Firewood per hh per
year
2.74 t
1.64 t
t CO2 per t firewood
3.75
3.75
10.275 t
6.15 t
Firewood per person
per day
No of persons per
household
t CO2 per hh per year
Carbon footprint
t CO2 saved
10.275 – 6.15 = 4.1 t CO2
Source: own source4
Using energy saving stoves of the type Jiko Kisasa or Rocket Stove saves 30-40% energy (WANJOHI and
KITHINJI, 2009) and reduces the CO2 emissions from 10.275 to 6.15 t, which is still 1.23 t per household
member.
This amount that is needed to prepare food has now to be added to the produce coming from an
agricultural food value chain (e.g. maize, potato, beans, fruits). Also here the data base is still very
fragmented.
7. Conclusions
Climate change has a significant impact on Kenya’s agriculture and the two investigated value chains tea
and passion fruit. Especially tea, a high altitude crop of 2000 m and above and Kenya’s agricultural
export earner number one is about to lose out, simply because the amount of high-lying land is very
4
Based on fuel wood consumption figures provided by the Stove Section of the program Promotion of Private
Sector Development in Agriculture (PSDA) and conversion figures for firewood to CO2 emissions by J. Dietz,
International Center for Agroforestry (ICRAF) and J.P. Kithinji, Department of Chemistry, University of Nairobi
15
limited. However, other crops will step into the altitude position that will be left vacant by tea. Passion
fruit is such a crop and a potential winner. Passion fruit is a crop that is economically very attractive, too.
It is gaining significance in Kenya and the market potential is far away from being tapped. Passion fruit
has a very wide ecological growth zone, due to two major types, i.e. the purple type Passiflora edulis f.
edulis growing in higher altitudes and the yellow type Passiflora edulis f. flavicarpa for the hot and wet
tropical lowlands. Thus, there is considerable scope of adaptation as only these two crops, i.e. tea and
passion fruit, show.
Looking into value chains and possibilities of mitigation, i.e. contributing to reducing the emissions of
green house gases, also here a lot of scope can be identified. In all stages of the value chain from input
supply to primary production and all further transformation stages up to consumption there are options
to either increase CO2 sequestration, i.e. raising the levels of removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide or
decreasing emissions. However, these alternatives may not be economic or economical at this time. The
development of carbon credit systems such as Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM), i.e.
compensating farmers or foresters for certain ways of cultivation that increase CO2 sequestration and
decrease emissions, is one way of providing an incentive. The development of CDM is very much in its
beginning as far as agriculture and small-scale agriculture in particular are concerned. Unfortunately the
famous CO2 footprint is a rather literally elusive “print” and – as CO2 is a gas – difficult to really get hold
of. Mountains of procedures, figures, coefficients, protocols and certifications need first to be developed
until it becomes feasible to devise practical ways in measuring and then effective positive changes,
particularly in small-holder agriculture which is generally highly diverse.
However, some important beginnings seem to have already been made. One of them merits special
mention and discussion. WOELCKE and TENNIGKEIT (2009) report about the possibility of ‘‘carbon
harvesting“ under a CO2 sequestration and emission reduction protocol and a Sustainable Agricultural
Land Management (SALM) regime with small-holder coffee growers around Mt. Kenya. They expect to
reduce CO2 emissions by 3.5 tonnes per ha and want to sell these in the emerging carbon market.
Assuming a price of about 5 US $/tonne this would mean an additional revenue of 17.5 US $ or 1.400
KES per ha per grower. Knowing that farms around Mt. Kenya are not much bigger than about one
hectare, such an amount would most likely be less than 1% of their mean annual revenue of around
150,000 KES/ha/yr. This is practically and to all intents a very low incentive to farmers. The general
vagaries of agricultural production due to bad or good weather are usually much higher and in the range
of 5-20%. An additional benefit of below 1 % would hardly be worthwhile. However, it might still be an
incentive for farmer organizations which run schemes over several ten thousands of farmers and who
reap part of the benefit. But otherwise, this example clearly indicates: mitigation of climate change is a
tough and steep uphill battle.
Economically more attractive are carbon credits when investing directly into energy saving technology.
Energy saving stoves reduce CO2 emissions by 4.1 t per household per year. Assuming again 5 US $ per
tonne reduced CO2 emissions, this would result in a CDM earning of 20.4 US $ or 1600 KES. This is very
attractive since the investment for an energy saving stove is just between 500 and 1000 KES and the
additionally saved firewood the main incentive driver anyhow.
16
Concluding from the aforementioned it appears that most of the responses to climate change in smallholder agriculture in a developing country such as Kenya are likely to go into the direction of adaptation,
less so towards mitigation. However, when directly investing in energy saving technologies like into
stoves, mitigation has a big scope.
8. References
JAETZOLD, R.: Personal Communication in an email to E. KRAIN, dated 3/9/2009
JAETZOLD, R., SCHMIDT, H., HORNETZ, B. and C. SHISANYA: Farm Management Handbook of Kenya, Vol. II,
Natural Conditions and Farm Management Information, 2nd Edition, Part A, West Kenya, Subpart
A1, Western Province, Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi, 2007
KARANI, P.: Draft 1, Afforestation, Reforestation and Forest Management, Natural Resource
Conservation, Management and Carbon Sequestration within the Scheme of Payment for
Environmental Services (PES), http://www.beainternational.org, 2004
KERKHOFFS, L.H.J. and J.B. REID: Carbon Sequestration in the Standing Biomass of Orchard Crops in New
Zealand, Report prepared for Horticulture New Zealand Ltd., New Zealand Institute for Crop and
Food Research, Hastings, March 2007
KROPP, J. and M. SCHOLZE: Climate Change Information for Effective Adaptation, A Practioner’s Manual,
German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Eschborn, May 2009
PURSEGLOVE, J.W.: Tropical Crops, Dicotyledons, Longman Scientific & Technical, Reprint, Singapore, 1987
SAUER,
J.,’’Tea’s Carbon Footprint Explored,’’ http://ezinearticles.com/?Teas-Carbon-FootprintExplored&id=2573491 (accessed Feb 26, 2010).
SEITZ, J. and W. NYANGENA: Economic Impact of Climate Change in the East African Community, Toulouse
and Nairobi, August 2009
SIMONETTE, O.: Potential Impacts of Global warming, GRID- Geneva, Case Studies on Climate Changes.
Geneva, 1989
SINDEN, G.: PAS 2050:2008, Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
of Goods and Services, British Standards Institute (BSi), October 2008
WANJOHI, P. and J.P. KITHINJI: Dissemination of Energy Saving Technologies for Improved Rural
Livelihoods, Promotion of Private Sector Development in Agriculture (PSDA), Nairobi,
forthcoming, 2009
WOELCKE, J. and T. TENNIGKEIT: Harvesting Agricultural Carbon in Kenya, Rural 21: 29-31, 01/2009
17