Document Actions
AW8-Support for an Integrated Regional Food System
AW8 final language
. Below is the final language submitted Nov 26, 2007.
Mitigation Option Description
16% of the U.S.’s total energy use is consumed within the national food system. A regional food system that integrates the whole supply chain (production, processing, packaging, distribution, purchase, preparation, and waste management) in carbon reduction strategies holds significant potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Life cycle assessment research that includes traditionally externalized factor inputs - such as food production practices, transportation method (boat, truck, plane), type of vehicle fuel used in transportation - and addresses more than just food mile measurements, is the first goal and will help determine the actual size of GHG reduction.
A successful regional food system will also provide new markets for regional farms of varying sizes, create new jobs and markets for food and energy companies in state, reduce petroleum use, and strengthen rural communities through the retention and circulation of profits within the regional economy. Ultimately agricultural lands can be preserved since there are now more robust economic options for farmers, which can reduce the risk of farming as a source of financial debt concern.
Low carbon footprint food products improve air, soil and water quality, particularly when integrated with carbon, nutrient, and water management strategies as proposed in other AW TWG strategies. By supporting low carbon food products we support the production of low carbon farming practices, like the use of on-farm renewable energy systems; organic carbon sequestration method including low-till/no-till methods; and agricultural carbon, nutrient, and water management strategies.
A regionally vibrant food system should not penalize current import/export successes, especially those that are working to implement carbon reduction strategies. This policy provides incentives to import/export supply chains that meet our GHG emission goals by rewarding carbon reduction in their existing supply chains for any product that passes through Washington ports, has met stated GHG emission goals, and whose country or state of origin has similar policies in place.
This option has cross benefits that complement some Transportation, Energy, and the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial TWG mitigation strategies, with potentially larger savings by utilizing low carbon fuel standard fuels, in-state biofuels, and/or for the co-location of renewable energy systems with regional food infrastructure requirements.
This option is focused on impacts and issues after farm production and complements AW TWG options that address farm production, solid waste, and open space and farmland preservation.
Overall, this policy is focused on looking across traditional issues and approaching the issues of GHG emission reduction, increasing clean energy jobs, and reducing fuel imports by integrating various issues, and whole supply chains, in to one cohesive strategy.
Mitigation Option Design
Goals:• Quantify potential gains through life cycle assessments of current and relevant potential food products by Nov. 1, 2009.
o Designed around agricultural products optimized for our diverse growing regions.• Integrate mitigation with cross-sector strategies emerging from transportation, energy, and residential/commercial/industrial technical working groups.
• Increase in-state production, processing, packaging, distribution, demand, and availability of state food for state markets by 2015. Utilize regional food products when appropriate and/or feasible.
• Reduce by 20% by 2020 the transportation distance that individuals, particularly those with limited food choices, have to travel to purchase recommended food such as those included in federal dietary recommendations, by potentially encouraging delivery services that minimize physical store trips and/or by incentivizing the location of food product offerings in underserved communities.
• Quantifying research of true potential by Nov. 1, 2009.
• State and local public institutions will lead by example by sourcing local food system products:
o 15% voluntary increase in dollars spent for regionally sourced products by 2010.
o 15% required increase in dollars spent for regionally sourced products by 2015.
o 20% required increase in dollars spent for regionally sourced products by 2020.
State Department of Ecology, State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, State Department of Agriculture, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, private sector.
Other:
• Larger gains can be realized by co-locating biofuel, renewable energy and CHP facilities with food processing and distribution centers, and also through incentives to use biofuels for transportation of food ingredients and finished goods.
• Tax revenue and community wealth will increase due to the retention/capturing of economic activity dollars in regional communities. New research on the economic benefits of locally directed spending shows that for every consumer dollar spent at community-based restaurants and groceries, more than 45 cents of additional economic activity is generated as the spending circulates through the state economy. Regionally-directed activity creates tax revenue that can be used to fund ghg reduction incentives.
• A carbon market mechanism or incentive that includes an economically attractive option for small and mid-size producers will generate an additional increase in economic activity, allowing public and private budgets to utilize precious resources for other items and needs. Money saved from this and other carbon-market related activity can be used to fund incentive packages that support the growth of this and other ghg reduction strategies.
• Food production waste that is sourced from organic and/or biostocks, including livestock manure, dairy waste, and organic municipal solid waste, may be a source of renewable energy for food processing facilities, or at least a viable feedstock for any biofuel or bioenergy processing facilities.
Implementation Mechanisms
• Determine the true potential for regional food system products and services to reduce ghg emissions, increase clean energy jobs, and reduce fuel imports. Quantify potential gains through life cycle assessments of current and relevant potential food products by Nov. 1, 2009.
o Research current and potential food products that in-state food system can produce.
o Clarify growing regions of state to distinguish food product potential.
7 regions: NW, SW, North Central (irrigated river valleys), North Columbia Basin (Project irrigated), South Columbia Basin (project irrigated), Yakima Valley (river irrigated), low-precip dryland*, intermediate precip dryland*, and high-rainfall dryland / annual crop zone* (Palouse).
*The rainfall zones are west-east transitions, not north-south. They follow the Cascade rainshadow effect.
o Determine carbon content, using life cycle assessment methods, of current food products consumed in-state that have comparable in-state production potential, and of potential replacement food products that can be produced, processed, packaged, transported, stored, and/or sold in-state.
♣ Include, when feasible, regional products (Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia) that show potential for large carbon reduction gains and/or large clean energy job creation.
♣ Consider fuel and energy sources in calculations.
♣ Ensure current low-carbon fuel or energy supplies, such as hydropower, are included.
♣ Research costs of improving in-state freight rail service (See Transportation TWG option T-6).
o Current and potential cost of production of any products determined to contain a lower carbon footprint.
♣ Considers, where feasible, potential carbon-market mechanisms including, but not limited to, GHG (carbon) tax, GHG cap and trade, low carbon fuel standard.
• Align state procurement regulations regarding in-state source preferencing.
• Tax credit, or port of call fee credit, available for any product that is by design and intent a product that has reduced it’s total ghg emissions across it’s supply chain, are transferred through WA state ports, and have relevant carbon footprint documents.
o For imported food products, country or state of origin must have an active ghg reduction policy in place that reciprocally incentives low-carbon food production, distribution, and import.
o Align with current state incentives for trade and that are in compliance with WTO concerns.
• Implementation involves coordination across sectors. Related policy options include:
o T-6: Improvements to Freight Railroads and Intercity Passenger Railroads;
o T-7: Diesel Engine Emission Reductions and Fuel Efficiency Improvements;
o T-10: Accelerate and Integrate Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Use;
o T-11: Low Carbon Fuel Standard;
o RCI-2: Targeted Financial Incentives and Instruments to Encourage Energy Efficiency Improvements;
o RCI-6: Provide Incentives to Promote and Reduction of Barriers to Implementation of Renewable Energy Systems;
o RCI-7: Provide Incentives and Resources to Promote and Reduction of Barrier to Implementation of Combined Heat and Power and Waste Heat Capture;
o RCI-8: Consumer Education Programs, Including Labeling of Embodied Life-cycle Energy and Carbon Content of Products and Buildings
o ES-2: Distributed renewable energy incentives and/or barrier removal;
o ES-7: Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and Thermal Energy Recovery and Use;
• State and local public institutions will lead by example by sourcing local food system products:
o 15% voluntary increase in dollars spent for regionally sourced products by 2010.
o 15% required increase in dollars spent for regionally sourced products by 2015.
o 20% required increase in dollars spent for regionally sourced products by 2020.
• Allocate up to fifteen cents per meal served to incorporate Washington agricultural products in to state agency cafeteria purchases and public school breakfast and lunch programs.
• Encourage co-location of decentralized CHP and renewable energy facilities with food processing, production, and storage hubs.
• Reduce the distance individuals have to travel to purchase food by 20% by 2020.
o Improve and promote alternatives methods to cars to shop at grocery stores.
♣ Work with counties to assure transit routes support access to food resources.
♣ Consider offering incentives to shoppers who do not use an automobile to travel to a store.
o Assist communities with limited food choices to identify appropriate locations for locating food products in their communities and neighborhoods.
♣ Consider economic incentives or rezoning for retail stores in areas of neighborhood with less food resources.
o Educate residents about the environmental impacts to using cars to access food resources.
o Research costs and benefits of encouraging delivery services that can reduce physical store trips.
Related Policies/Programs in Place
• Federal Incentives
o 2007 Farm Bill
♣ As of Oct. 30th still under revision.
o Value Added Producer Grants (VPAG)
♣ Grants may be used for planning activities and for working capital for marketing value-added agricultural products and for farm-based renewable energy. Eligible applicants are independent producers, farmer and rancher cooperatives, agricultural producer groups, and majority-controlled producer-based business ventures.
♣ http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/vadg.htm
o Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG) Program
♣ The RBEG program is a broad based program that reaches to the core of rural development in a number of ways. Any project funded under the RBEG program should benefit small and emerging private businesses in rural areas. Small and emerging private businesses are those that will employ 50 or fewer new employees and have less than $1 million in projected gross revenues.
♣ http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/rbeg.htm
o Rural Cooperative Development Grant Program (RCDG)
♣ Rural Cooperative Development grants are made for establishing and operating centers for cooperative development for the primary purpose of improving the economic condition of rural areas through the development of new cooperatives and improving operations of existing cooperatives. The U.S. Department of Agriculture desires to encourage and stimulate the development of effective cooperative organizations in rural America as a part of its total package of rural development efforts.
♣ http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/rcdg.htm
o Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA)
♣ The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program provides information to farmers and other rural users on a variety of sustainable agricultural practices that include both cropping and livestock operations. The program encourages agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices which allow them to maintain or improve profits, produce high quality food and reduce adverse impacts to the environment.
♣ http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/attra.htm
o Rural Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG)
♣ The RBOG program promotes sustainable economic development in rural communities with exceptional needs through provision of training and technical assistance for business development, entrepreneurs, and economic development officials and to assist with economic development planning.
♣ http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/rbog.htm
• Washington State Incentives
o Rural Washington Loan Fund
♣ The Washington State Rural Washington Loan Fund (RWLF) provides gap financing to businesses that will create new jobs or retain existing jobs, particularly for lower-income persons. Only businesses in nonentitlement areas of the state (see map below) are eligible for these loans. "Gap" is defined as that portion of a project which cannot be financed through other sources, but which is the last portion needed before the overall investment can occur. Priority is given to timber-dependent and distressed area projects.
♣ http://www.cted.wa.gov/portal/alias__cted/lang__en/tabID__87/DesktopDefault.aspx
o Tax-Exempt Economic Development Bonds
♣ Manufacturing and processing projects located in Washington. "Exempt facilities" projects include waste disposal and other types of infrastructure.
♣ http://www.wedfa.wa.gov/industrial.htm
Types(s) of GHG Reductions
CH4: Potential methane reductions from utilization of methane digesters and CHP power sources serving energy to regional processing centers (see AW-1 and Energy TWG ES-7).
N2O: Nitrous Oxide reductions related to agriculture production practices (see AW-5).
CO2: CO2 reductions from lower energy consumption across integrated food system.
Estimated GHG Savings (in 2020) and Costs per MtCO2e
• Data Sources:
o "Washington State Fact Sheet", USDA Economic Research Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/ , spreadsheet (“WA-fact-sheet.xls”, and pdf downloaded Aug. 25, 2007)
o Joydeep Ghosh and David W Holland, "The Role of Agriculture and Food Processing in the Washington Economy: An Input-Output Perspective", WSU, August 2004, http://www.impact.wsu.edu/publications/tech_papers/pdf/04-114.pdf
o " Seattle Food System Enhancement Project", Program on the Environment Certificate in Environmental Management Keystone Project, 2006-2007, http://courses.washington.edu/emksp06/SeattleFoodSystem/Index.shtml
o Trade Incentives
♣ Washington State Business and Project Development
• http://www.choosewashington.com/state_data/Incentives.asp
♣ WA Department of Revenue “Incentive Programs: Deferrals, Exemptions, and Credits”
• http://www.dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/taxincentives/incentiveprograms.aspx
• Quantification Methods:
o Unquantified option due to lack of solid data for calculations across supply chains.
o New research from the University of Washington highlights potential reductions from regional servings of food. Initial calculations to scale up this research have revealed savings between .07-.86 MMT CO2e per year. More research is needed to confirm this early work.
• Key Assumptions:
o Enough in state or regional food production can occur to make a significant reduction in food system related ghg emissions.
o Impacts to current trade market will not be a deterrent to the scaling up of a regional food system.
Contribution to Other Goals
• Contribution to Long-term GHG Emission Goals (2035/2050):
o Option not quantified due to lack of solid data for calculations across supply chains and for integrated food systems. More research is needed to validate initial research (see above).
• Job Creation:
o Clean energy jobs will increase related to food processing, transportation, and waste disposal/composting. Some job shifting is expected to occur across the transportation, shipping, and retail sectors.
o Creation of in-state temporary construction as well as permanent maintenance jobs.
• Reduced Fuel Import Expenditures:
o Reduction in fuel imports will occur from incentivizing biofuel that is feasibly grown and processed in-state, in conjunction with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. And as through meeting the low carbon fuel standard, production of biofuel feedstocks in-state will lead to more ghg reductions and sequestration within the agricultural sector.
Support for private sector truck fleets to purchase in-state biodiesel will incentive the growth of in-state production markets.
• Key Uncertainties
o Impacts on trade are uncertain.
o Established agriculture businesses will not see value of emerging regional food markets and potential ghg reduction strategies.
o Price of regional food system products, without early government incentives, will inhibit the growth and acceptance for these foods.
o Seasonality and volume constraints will inhibit significant ghg reductions.
o Additional tax revenue generated from local economic food system activity may not be utilized to incentivize the growth and success of an integrated regional food system, and/or government will not direct appropriate spending at critical growth stages to allow emerging markets to reach critical mass.
o For state lead by example efforts, tracking impacts by dollars instead of volume of food purchased will be easier. The impacts on final food prices are less clear. If government does not support appropriate incentives food prices for some purchases will most likely increase especially in the short term, or until market forces rebalance with continued growth of emerging market.
Additional Benefits and Costs
• Tax revenue and community wealth will increase due to the retention/capturing of economic activity dollars in regional communities. Regionally-directed activity creates tax revenue that can be used to fund ghg reduction incentives.
• New research on the economic benefits of locally directed spending shows that for every consumer dollar spent at community-based restaurants and groceries, more than 45 cents of additional economic activity is generated as the spending circulates through the state economy.
• A shift of 20% of our food dollars into locally directed spending would result in a nearly half billion dollar annual income increase in King County alone and double that in the Central Puget Sound region.
• Dollars spent at local food economy restaurants and groceries have more than twice the usual impact of spending at restaurants and groceries on the income of upstream suppliers.
• A regional food system can assist food security and risk mitigation strategies by decentralizing food production, thereby reducing the impact of any crop failure, disease, or terrorist attack on the national food supply.
Feasibility Issues
• Overall sustainability is an important criterion for considering trade offs in benefits. Reduction in carbon should be considered along side social, economic, and other environmental costs and benefits.
• WA State welcomes any and all out-of-state food products working to reduce their carbon footprint. WA State investments should be made with considerations of community impacts and economic development, and support food products that are actively working to reduce embedded carbon content.
• Importing a lower carbon food product than what we can produce in state should be encouraged, when appropriate, alongside efforts to incentivize production of lower carbon, in-state food products for regional consumption. The extent to which we can broaden the reach of our carbon reduction efforts to impact import/export policies needs to be further refined.
o Consultation with port and trade experts regarding appropriate incentives is of great importance to make sure that any incentive that is developed considers the costs and benefits to existing import and export markets.
• 2007 Farm Bill, when finalized, will need to be consulted for opportunities and restrictions, particularly language pertaining to country of origin labeling and local preferencing issues.
• Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction should be engaged for consideration of impact and potential of public school participation in state lead by example efforts.
• The uniqueness of the state’s agricultural diversity and variability must be considered in any agriculture carbon policy. Any such policy must be based off of sound research of our state's agricultural land and crops, and consider bio-regional differences in any recommendations.
WSU AgWeatherNet selects 21 Acres for regional weather station