Energy and Foof Communities

ENERGYAND FOOD COMMUNITIES

A sustainable program

EXPO MILANO 2015 ENERGY and FOOD COMMUNITIES:

A sustainable programme

AiCARR Culture and technique for Energy Man and Environment

IN COOPERATION WITH

UNDER THE CULTURAL PROGRAMME OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY PAVILLION

UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF

AiCARR Culture and technique for Energy Man and Environment

ENERGY and FOOD COMMUNITIES: A sustainable programme

EXPO MILAN 2015

AiCARR Via Melchiorre Gioia,168 20125 Milano MI - Italy Tel. 0267479270 Fax 0267479262 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.aicarr.org ISBN 978-88-95620-62-6

Copyright AiCARR 2015. All rights are reserved. No part of the present volume can be reproduced or diffused with any means without written authorization of the Editor. AiCARR cannot be deemed directly or indirectly responsible for the contents of the articles published in the present volume.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENERGY AND FOOD COMMUNITIES: A SUSTAINABLE PROGRAMME Livio de Santoli – President of AiCARR – Delegate for Building and Energy policies University “La Sapienza” Rome

SMALL SCALE PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT Luca Alberto Piterà – Technical Secretary of AiCARR

ENERGY PROBLEMS IN FOOD INDUSTRY, FOCUSING ON GROCERY STORES AND REFRIGERATED WAREHOUSES: AN INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEW Thomas H. Phoenix – P.E., Fashrae, Leed AP – ASHRAE Society President

FOOD PRODUCTION SYSTEMS Stefano Masini, Francesco Ciancaleoni – Environment and Territory Area - Coldiretti

FOOD VS ENERGY, CONFLICT OR INTEGRATION Marino Berton – AIEL General Manager

ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR AN INNOVATIVE AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE SYSTEM Carlo Alberto Campiotti, Arianna Latini, Matteo Scoccianti, Corinna Viola – ENEA UTEE (Energy Efficiency Technical Unit)

ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR FOOD CONSERVATION INDUSTRY Giovanni Cortella – DIEG University of Udine, AiCARR member

ENERGY GENERATION FROM AGRICULTURAL BIOMASS AN OVERALL PICTURE Antonio N. Negri – Manager of GSE S.p.A. Energy Services

FOOD CHAIN CERTIFICATION: FROM CONTENT TO CONTAINER Marco Mari – Senior Business Developer and Special Project Manager – Bureau Veritas Italia S.p.A.

5 ENERGY and FOOD Communities: a sustainable programme

LIVIO DE SANTOLI

President of AICARR – Delegate for Building and Energy policies – University “La Sapienza” Rome

AiCARR’s proposal starts from EXPO Milano 2015. Cascina Triulza, the place of civil society and, not coincidentally, the third sector is where AiCARR will discuss about energy and food to formulate an ambitious, but necessary, project for a different and more conscious approach to these issues through the involvement of some of the most influential partners in the energy and food production sectors; a complex but inevitable study in the year of feeding the planet. The reflections on energy issues in a century that has inherited political, economic, land management, environmental and even personal identity issues from the century before must radically rethink the production processes and consumption behaviour; and today more than ever, a unified and inclusive view - a new alliance between man and nature. This concept of a “unified view” could start with Energy Communities, that today seem to have sparked the collective imagination of energy thinkers. Only a few years ago, there was talk of involving the territories, of a responsible participation of individuals, of opposition to the centralization and distribution monopoly and an economy based upon the widespread growth contrasting speculative finance1 – many considered it to be far too unrealistic. As part of this model, agriculture plays a fundamental role in the transformation of primary energy in both prospects, which are mutually complementary; that is, the energy required for agriculture and the energy produced by agriculture. Use and production, as a metaphor of man who rebels against his current condition, of a simple user, because he wants to be the leading player. In fact, man is not only a user of technology, but he himself becomes a machine that transforms the agricultural asset through the consumption of food. If it is essential to emphasize a new production role that takes into account the effects and the consequences on the economic, financial, social and environmental condition of the energy communities that make the resources available, this is even more evident in the agricultural sector (the food communities). The necessary physical and emotional closeness of the individual to the production site and his active participation not only produces a better product, but an informed and efficient consumer. This goes for food as well as energy. Agriculture needs energy. We constantly talk about wasting food, but what about wasting energy to create that food (a third of which is then wasted)? Is a peasant world possible like the one fifty years ago in Italy? A world without waste, characterized by a completely decarbonised production?

1 Livio de Santoli, Le Comunità dell’Energia (The Energy Communities), Quodlibet 2011

6 The increase in food production over the last 50 years has reduced global hunger (although there are still more than 800 million people who suffer famine), but there is a high environmental price to pay, which gives agriculture a great responsibility on the overall stability of the planet. As agricultural production is still not sufficient to ensure food safety, its production methods should no longer be considered acceptable as they result in land degradation, loss of biodiversity and pollution. These conditions, which, like food, are essential to human life and welfare. Even the FAO states that this model should be subjected to a thorough review and that we need a paradigm shift2. The food sector currently accounts for about 30 percent of the world’s total energy consumption and 22 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. Industrialized countries use a greater portion of this energy for processing and transportation, i.e. three to four times greater than the energy used for primary production. On the other hand, in countries with low GDPs, the percentage for preparing and cooking food is much higher – but not least – the energy required for crop production is greater (see Fig. 1). Greenhouse gas emissions are particularly significant for production.

Figure 1 - indicative figures of final energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions (FAO source, which points out that these are merely indicative data and should be interpreted with caution).

This means that energy efficiency of the entire food chain, cultivations, production systems, the use of irrigation and fertilizers, refrigeration, storage systems, transport and food preparation must be improved.

Access to energy produced from renewable sources finds a perfect integration and utilization in agriculture and aquaculture and in processing plants. In fact, the energy can be a source of additional revenue if sold on the territory, especially when it favours the exploitation of local resources, biomass waste, food production and processing, which in turn would be transformed from waste (only one cost) to additional energy sources in a

2 FAO Energy and Smart Food for People and Climate, 2011

7 virtuous circle of the waste cycle (a resource). The increased use of renewable sources is only at the initial stage in the agricultural sector, but investments and research need to be boosted, likewise the development of educational programmes and the dissemination of good practices. Therefore, three possible ways to address with awareness the issue of the energy required for agriculture can be identified as follows:  To increase the efficient direct and indirect use of energy so as to reduce energy intensity (MJ/kg of produced food/produce);  To encourage the use of renewable energy systems in place of fossil fuel systems, without reducing food production;  To encourage and improve access of rural communities to energy services.

The concept of Energy and Food Communities, however, in addition to providing a supply of sustainable energy for the food industry, also imposes the generation of energy by the agricultural sector, when the farming community is the provider of sustainable and compatible energy sources. Compatible means respectful of agricultural production and low impact on the environment. The use of biomass waste as a sign of their enhancement within the territory where they are produced and the inclusion of different products in a network context would reveal an energy capacity for the proper use of residual biomasses, considered as by- products and not as waste. In general, the concept of energy vocationality is linked to the need for the transformation activities of agro-forestry products to use local production process waste in their area to produce the energy needed by that territory. Parallelism between agriculture and energy is completed by a consideration on the concept of sovereignty, which implies the need for energy policies that are agricultural production-conscious and not to the contrary. As mentioned, this means enhancing waste production as an economically and ecologically convenient procurement source in a life cycle logic; but it also means a short supply chain as a way of managing production, creating revenue and guaranteeing the sustainability of farms that become the new energy businesses.

AiCARR’s proposal is to highlight the need to innovate the existing relationship between agriculture and energy in terms of sustainability, in the wake of the program guidelines defined by the European and National agricultural policies. The principles on which a series of projects can be developed also in the legislative, regulatory and institutional framework are therefore:

 food and energy sovereignty of the territory;

 enhancement of the agricultural system;

 traceability and certification in the agricultural sector;

 de-carbonization of the agricultural sector.

8 To strategically develop these themes and consider them as an opportunity to analyze the energy-agriculture relations is a multi-disciplinary approach to addressing the environmental, social and economic sustainability issue and AiCARR’s goal is to do so exclusively on a territorial scale. A different model is suggested, based on sharing and cooperating that goes beyond the current framework with a view to an aggregate profit, caused by lengthening of the production process where the initial link (the producer) and the end link (the consumer) are penalized to the benefit of the intermediary figures; with the weakening of property rights, and efficient exploitation of territorial abundance. So the proposal is that of a unified approach that provides for the need for transparency, simplification and distribution, in a system in which profits will reverse. A system of marginal costs equal to zero3. Life on the planet will have to be such as to ensure that each person has guaranteed access to the food and energy needed, without polluting the environment or damaging individuals and at adequate economic conditions. The direct consequence of this is a quicker transition towards clean forms of energy and democratic means and services of producing food and energy because the population in the territory that makes its resources available will participate in the decision-making. To achieve this goal it is necessary to develop a network of consumers, farmers, researchers, proponents of private and public initiatives, public administrators who are convinced of wanting to radically change food production towards sustainability and security and the use of agricultural resources to make energy compatible with the wealth of the territory. The role of civil society will be clear in the future along with the new social model that it entails: the creation of the energy and food communities.

3 A system using renewable energy sources is, by definition, a zero marginal cost system.

Small-scale production enhancement

LUCA ALBERTO PITERÀ

Technical Secretary of AiCARR

The energy intensity incorporated in food products is an issue that should not be overlooked, considering that one third of food production is not consumed and directly becomes waste (FAO, 2011). In low-GDP countries, most food losses and thus energy losses are concentrated in the harvesting and storage phases, whereas in high GDP countries, food waste is concentrated mainly in retail, preparation, cooking and consumption as well as in the various stages of the food supply chain. With a continuous increase in energy prices, in the near future the global food industry will have to reckon with an increase in risks and a constant decrease in profits, limiting the efforts that low-GDP countries are making with a view to increasing energy efficiency and productivity as well as small and large sized food systems. A possible solution consists of reducing the energy needs in strategic sectors of the supply chain, such as:

 agricultural mechanization;

 transport;

 energy carriers such as heat and electricity;

 the production of fertilizers allowing the food sector dependency on fossil fuels to be reduced and therefore decar- bonising the supply chain. Making energy efficiency is not a technological problem; both production and processing practices existing on this side and beyond farm boundaries can achieve a significant reduction in energy intensity in terms of primary energy consumption per unit of food product, while ensuring both food security and environmental sustainability. The path to improved energy efficiency is well mapped out; however it should be pursued with open eyes, on condition that:

 it does not reduce production;

 it does not reduce access to energy carriers;

4 With "high GDP" we intend the top 50 countries in terms of GDP measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis divided by the population of the concerned country; the approximately 176 re- maining countries are included in the "low GDP" indicator (index Mundi http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=67)

10  it does not compromise rural livelihood.

Fig.1, for example, shows a reduction of 10% in food losses for some commodity sectors, associated with a change of diet and consumers’ eating habits, related to the consumption of locally produced fresh foods (short chain), would significantly reduce the supply chain energy demand as well as the demand for valuable resources such as water and soil. As a result, these changes place the consumer at the centre of this transformation that implies a significant change in his habits, which takes time to be implemented, but at the same time is an unwaivable challenge for energy and food communities.

Fig. 1 – Food losses per commodity sector (FAO Food Waste Campaign)

Another aspect to be considered alongside energy efficiency is access to basic energy sources, which is an essential prerogative to achieve many of the Millennium De- velopment Goals (MDGs); a solution may be to adopt smart-energy food systems, which would promote access to poor rural communities, to affordable and sustainable energy supply, combined with financial instruments such as microcredit. This would certainly increase the quality of life of these communities and provide more livelihood opportunities thanks to improved conservation, communications and transport to potential markets.

A more complex aspect is small-scale production enhancement, because the food chain is complex and, most of all, it is diversified. It starts from the bottom, which con-

11 sists of small rural areas that produce food for their livelihood and works its way up to the large-scale agricultural businesses that supply large retailers (e.g.: Supermarkets) worldwide. With different levels of penetration, all these systems depend on various forms of energy. The small-scale production systems mostly use the work developed by man or animals; however, over time this has been increasingly replaced with systems that use fossil fuels in regions where the latter are relatively inexpensive. Relatively larger enterprises as well as small farmers in many countries not only provide fresh produce to the local market, but also fuel small processing plants. In some developing countries, modern food systems are being developed 5, therefore, when we speak about the relationship between energy and food, countries can no longer be classified through comparison benchmarks such as:

 OECD and non-OECD (Organization for Economics Co -operation and Development);

 developed or developing countries;

 traditional or conventional; and

 subsistence or industrialized.

It is more useful to compare them using other benchmarks based on the major differences in food chains such as in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). In addition to the diversification performed on the GDP, it is useful to divide agricultural enterprises according to size or in small and large so as to better understand the concepts that link energy to production according to the dimensions of the businesses being considered, although it is not possible to draw a clear line between the two. For example, small tea plantations hire a large number of people to harvest the produce or small fishing boats strongly depend on fossil fuels with all the relevant considerations regarding the costs involved, although both are configured as small businesses. Please refer to Table 1 for details.

Self-sufficiency The first level of this classification is actually occupied by small family businesses, whose activities are mainly represented by agriculture and fishing, aimed not so much at trading but at self-sufficiency. These producers have very low overall energy intensity and generally use manual labour or working animals for their production. For this reason and also given their widespread use, their energy requirements are not included in worldwide energy balances. This is also due to the fact that there are no data to develop an energy balance, or to determine the energy demand in terms of food and feed material to meet the work carried out both by man and animals. Furthermore, the lack of financial

5 In China, for example, supermarkets are beginning to dominate the food supply chain (Vorley B, 2011)

12 resources limits the ability of these businesses to access other forms of energy. That is why the development of microcredit is important for this sector.

–

Manufacturer’s size entry General intensity unit Working persons of n° for animals ofUse labour on Dependence fuels fossil of ca Availability ta ma food Reference ket intensity Energy Micro- Self-sufficiency Low 1 -2 Common None Personal use Low finance Local Low Low/m Low 2 - 3 Possible Limited market/proces to edium s/personal use high Local Small family units market/region Low Mediu High 2 - 3 Rare Limited al to m/high process/perso high nal use Local/ Low Mediu Low 3 - 10 Rare Medium regional/expo to m/high rt high Small enterprises Local/ Low High 3 - 10 None High Medium regional/expo to rt high regional Low Large enterprises High 10 - 50 None High Good process/expor to t high

Table 1 – Relation between energy intensity and size of company/enterprise (FAO, 2011)

Small farms Depending on the degree of modernization, "small" family units can engage in a variety of production activities, including the cultivation of small fields, organic cultivation, livestock breeding, use of owned vessels and the maintenance of farms (from a few livestock heads up to dozens of animals). These enterprises, with the exception of those using manual labour and/or working animals, may adopt different energy efficiency options, such as the use of solar thermal energy for the crop drying process, biogas production, heating and cooking, including the production of electrical energy through photovoltaic systems (refer to Figure 2 for further details).

Fig. 2 - Example of small-scale energy flows (FAO, 2011)

Small enterprises These can be family-run, but they are usually privately owned. They operate on a slightly larger scale, employing several employees. These businesses have the possibility (both economic and technological) to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels by improving energy efficiency and generation from renewable energy sources, which could provide additional benefits to local communities.

Large farms These are characterized by high-energy needs throughout the entire supply chain (as shown in Fig. 3). In general they are locally owned but are operated by international companies (with huge benefits to local communities if the property belongs to coopera- tives). Some examples include:

 fleets for trawling or tuna and swordfish fishing;

 farms for meat production;

 sugar cane plantations;

 plantations for the production of palm oil.

These business organizations are characterized by easy access to financial resources for capital investments aimed at adopting high-energy efficiency equipment for the exploitation of renewable energy sources. The on-site generation and the export of energy carriers (thermal energy and electricity), contribute as a source of additional income.

Fig. 3 - Example of large-scale energy flows (FAO, 2011)

As can be seen, the shift from a self-sustaining and breeding production to a more advanced production is now under way, especially in low GDP countries, which in the future will increase their energy demand and their environmental impact in terms of global emissions. Therefore, future choices cannot be based on greater penetration and dependence on fossil sources, but they will have to be aimed at adopting strategies that will necessarily lead to decarbonise the food chain.

To achieve these goals, it is necessary to act both on the local product demand through the consumer, and on the small-medium production, promoting access and transfer of energy, the use of renewable energy sources, the distributed generation with a view to smart-farms, and why not? Smart-farms or simultaneous production of both food and energy (with the same use of resources in terms of soil, for example), in order to achieve a sustainable intensification of crops, while guaranteeing the protection of the territory Smart-farms can generate:  An increase of energy efficiency in production for medium/large energy- intensive enterprises characterized by isolated single-crop systems or specialized productions such as pig farming. In some cases this is possible even without high capital investments (Bogdanski et al., 2010a);

 In local communities a certain degree of energy self-sufficiency produced by small businesses throughout the territory.

The smart-farms approach can also be applied to large-scale agricultural operations, combined production of food and energy, the adoption of more farming or agro-forestry systems, possibly related to livestock and fish. Another approach consists in maximizing the synergies between food production and energy production from renewable sources by using crop residues and animal waste to generate renewable energy and reduce the environmental impact of the activities, thereby easily integrating other renewable energy sources available locally within this system (Bogdanski et al, 2010a).

Figure 4 - Conceptual framework of smart-farms (FAO, 2011)

Smart-farms are able to provide a balance between productions from single-crop farming, seeking to maximize short-term profit, and "mixed farming", which integrate livestock, pastures and the production of crops on the same property. To get the benefits from both approaches, smart-farms could evolve into a large-scale regional system that combines food and energy production techniques integrated among several neighbouring farms. This would allow more specialized and perhaps more effective distribution of labour. Such systems could support the objectives of rural development in both developed and developing countries in search of better food and energy security.

Bibliography Bogdanski A, Dubois O, Jamieson C and Krell R, 2010a. Making integrated food/energy systems work for people and climate – an overview. Environment and Natural Sources Management working paper 45, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/ i2044e/i2044e00.htm FAO, 2011 - Energy-smart” food for people and climate - Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Vorley B, 2011. Small farmers and market modernisation, Reflect and Act, International Institute for Environmental Development, IIED Sustainable Markets Group, July. www.iied.org

Energy problems in food industry, focusing on grocery stores and refrigerated warehouses: an international overview

THOMAS H. PHOENIX

P.E., FASHRAE, LEED AP | ASHRAE SOCIETY PRESIDENT

Today’s grocery stores often include a wide range of prepared food services and expanded fresh food products, which creates unique challenges in the design process due to the needed balance between refrigeration, food service and HVAC systems. When coupled with the need to create an inviting environment and positive shopping experience for customers, energy efficiency may get overlooked. However, an energy efficient grocery store design adds value, reduces expenses and enhances the customer shopping experience. This is especially critical given that 60 percent of energy use in supermarkets is attributed to refrigeration. Refrigeration systems consume approximately half of the total energy consumed by a typical grocery store, and they inter-act with other building systems in a number of ways. One example is the heating load created by refrigerated cases without doors. Humidity control is another major issue. These interactions impact equipment performance and fresh food perishability. Traditionally, the refrigeration and food service are considered independently from the rest of the building systems and the HVAC&R is expected to meet the loads. An integrated approach looks at the building holistically and addresses issues such as: HVAC humidity levels that are critical to the performance of the refrigeration system, refrigeration system waste heat that can be used for hot water or conditioning the outside air, and food service operation that generates lots of heat that must be removed. Adding doors to refrigerated cases reduces uncontrolled cooling, simplifies temperature control and reduces sys-tem load. Better management of exhaust hoods and better selection of equipment reduces the food service loads. Proper introduction of outside air that is semi- conditioned helps minimize cooking smoke and odours with minimal conditioning. These are just examples of how the pieces need to work together. Guidance on these issues is provided in a publication developed by a committee representing a diverse group of energy professionals. The Advanced Energy Design Guide for Grocery Stores is a continuation of the series of Advanced Energy Design Guide (AEDG) publications designed to provide recommendations to achieve 50% energy savings when compared with the mini-mum code requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (ASHRAE 2004). This Guide applies to grocery stores with gross floor areas between 2.3 and 5.2 square meters with medium- and low- temperature refrigerated cases and walk-ins; however, many of the recommendations

17 may also be applied to smaller or larger grocery stores. When combined with the 50% AEDG for Medium to Big-Box Retail Buildings, the combination can be used for larger stores that consist of both groceries and general merchandise. Information in the Guide can help in creating a cost-effective design for new construction and major renovations of grocery store buildings that will result in buildings that consume substantially less energy compared to the minimum code-compliant design, resulting in lower operating costs. Also important is that through use of an integrated design process, an energy-efficient building offers a great possibility to enhance the shopping and working environment with respect to indoor air quality (IAQ), thermal comfort, and the visual effects of merchandise display. For successful designs of “brand right” energy-efficient buildings, owners and designers must consider the following as they collaborate on the designs for their buildings:

 Meet all brand requirements of the food retailer.

 Create a healthy and inviting indoor environment.

 Address where energy is used.

 Minimize oversizing and unnecessary redundancy to reduce capital costs.

 Create an appealing environment for the effective display of merchandise.

 Use construction practices such as low-emitting materials and oversight to avoid moisture intrusion.

 Ensure operations will maintain clean, dry buildings with reduced sources of contaminants to help ensure good IAQ.

 Optimize the ventilation requirements through a performance-based approach such as demand control or the IAQ Procedure of ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2013 or meets other functional requirements such as makeup air for exhaust.

 Allow for downsized HVAC systems due to better envelope, optimized ventilation, more efficient lighting, and reduced and better-managed miscellaneous electric loads.

 Provide ongoing monitoring and oversight to ensure operational efficiency is maintained.

 Leverage successful efficiency measures into chain-wide rollouts to drive down existing building energy use.

18 Many food retailers are in the unique position of having a portfolio of buildings with similar designs across many climate zones. This portfolio of existing buildings can provide the basis to understand where energy is used and where opportunities exist for high-performance improvements. Focusing on the design of prototypical grocery stores allows best practices to be applied to site-specific building locations across the chain. The ability for a prototypical design to achieve and maintain 50% energy use reduction in any climate and on any site re-quires more than just project design team agreement on any specific set of building energy systems. Maintaining a brand is critical for food retailers, as is the need for flexibility in merchandizing. It is more difficult to significantly vary the shape or orientation of site-specific buildings to account for location-specific parameters such as impact on solar energy. To achieve the highest performance in all locations, food retailers will need to accept more flexibility in design features to take advantage of climate-specific measures that make economic sense in some areas but not others. For example, indirect evaporative cooling may make sense in hot, dry climates but might not in colder climates. When designs do vary from the prototype, close attention must be carried through implementation and operations to ensure long-term success and true high-performing operations. Understanding the risks and rewards of design decisions is crucial to achieving high performance. This understanding could be part of the owner’s internal design expertise or that of a consultant with long-term, detailed knowledge of owner’s needs. In any case, a partnership must be established amongst the members of the design team to encourage calculated design risk (such as not oversizing HVAC equipment). Owners will benefit from reduced capital costs and improved energy efficiency if systems are optimally designed without excessive safety factors. Designers should communicate opportunities in high-performance design to owners along with the risks/rewards for the design. When using new technology, building owners should consider options for modifications that could be made if performance isn’t as intended, particularly in early stages of adoption for the new technology. It is also worth noting that operation and maintenance (O&M) staff need to be provided with the tools, training, and in-formation to keep the building running at the high level of efficiency designed into the project. Without this buy-in, the efforts of the design team can be futile. This includes assumptions made concerning equipment, maintenance, calibration, and replacement of critical building systems. Ultimately, the design team should take into consideration the O&M procedures used by the building owner and ensure that system design can be effectively incorporated into standard processes or should inform the owner of special training and procedures that must be used for the high-performance building. Measurement and verification of sys-tem performance of the actual building is an ongoing process and is critical to sustained high performance of the building.

Enhanced shopping environments and humidity control

In addition to high energy efficiency, good design practice focuses on creating healthier building environments, including visual comfort, acceptable acoustic comfort, thermal comfort, and good IAQ for shoppers and employees. The goal of food retailers is to create an inviting environment for customers visiting for a quick grab-and-go

19 shopping experience and for those shopping for an extended time. The focus within a grocery store is on the products being sold and avoiding conditions that negatively impact the customer or employee experience. Energy-saving designs and products should be considered in light of their impact on the occupant experience and store brand in order to be accepted by grocery store operations staff and customers. The grocery industry has grappled with humidity control for many years and has identified only a few efficient approaches. Grocery stores are highly sensitive to humidity, as it impacts refrigerated case performance and fresh food perishability. The key is to balance latent and sensible loads. This balance becomes more important as stores become more efficient and doors are placed on refrigerated cases. System designs should first address humidity by ensuring ventilation rates are adequate for good IAQ. The design should also specify systems that adapt to changing humidity conditions and ensure that the appropriate amount of humidity is removed to maintain good refrigeration system performance and prevent product loss.

Lower life-cycle costs

In some cases, the capital cost of energy-efficient building system technology cannot be justified by the energy cost savings alone. However, energy-efficient grocery stores can cost less to build than traditional store constructions through use of an integrated design process and project delivery. For example, installing refrigerated cases with glass doors can dramatically reduce refrigeration compressor and condenser capacity requirements while lowering space-heating requirements on the sales floor. Because food retailers directly purchase many of the energy-using components of a building, the owner can include energy-efficiency features in the selection process for those components. Driving down capital costs through good design practices and procurement efforts on top of energy cost savings and maximized incentives will help meet energy savings goals while maintaining the fiscal responsibility required for a successful commercial building owner.

Reduced operating costs

Designing for energy efficiency isn’t enough to ensure a building will actually save energy. Ensuring that systems are installed and operating as intended is critical. Grocery store chains can take advantage of prototypical processes to incorporate commissioning- related activities into the design and through building construction and then monitor operations through centralized monitoring and control systems. It is likely that when food retailers better understand where the energy is being consumed within their stores, they will find opportunities to reduce operating costs. Measurement and verification processes will help achieve and maintain the high performance goals of the store. Learning from ongoing monitoring will also provide information valuable to allow continuous improvement in design and operation.

20 Commissioning

Another important tool in saving energy is commissioning. Studies have shown commissioning could result in 7 to 25 percent energy savings. Custom refrigeration systems are complex and individually designed for each facility. Deficiencies in the system design found at start-up are not easily resolved and, as a result, maintenance managers or operators deal with unnecessary shortcomings and expenses over the life of a facility. The value of commissioning is to establish a consistent stepwise process that helps ‘get it right the first time,’ resulting in refrigeration systems that ‘work right’ and minimize maintenance and energy costs. ASHRAE’s Refrigeration Commissioning Guide for Commercial and Industrial Systems is a great resource for building owners and managers looking to improve energy savings and system performance. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that supermarkets typically use approximately 3,000,000 kWh of electricity per year, with 60 percent of that energy use attributed to refrigeration (EPA 2007). Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI) predicts that commissioning in existing grocery stores would result in 7 percent to 25 percent energy savings per year (PECI 2010). Based on these estimates, this commissioning guide, if widely adopted, would lead to substantial energy savings. Thousands of refrigeration systems are installed every year in facilities ranging from convenience stores to large, sophisticated frozen food distribution centres. Properly commissioned systems reduce energy cost, are easier to maintain, help minimize liabilities from refrigeration leaks and reduce loss of product to system failures or unreliable performance. Unfortunately, in the United States, commissioning of refrigeration systems is uncommon in the industry. One reason is a belief that commissioning results in added cost and time without sufficient or measureable value. Certainly, commissioning is an investment, but it provides significant financial value in several ways. First, systems operate more reliably with lower maintenance cost and lower energy cost when commissioning is applied. Second, incorporating commissioning can reduce first cost through improved under-standing of system performance and lead to better equipment design and installation methods.

Closing

Energy-efficient grocery store design can add value in addition to direct expense reduction, including the ability to publicize a corporate commitment to sustainability, linking to a corporate sustainable mission, higher employee morale, and maintenance cost savings when properly implemented. ASHRAE encourages retailers to incorporate energy-efficient design practices into their buildings, and to strive to find additional efficiency and cost savings measures that are more unique to their specific building designs and operations.

References and resources

ASHRAE. 2015. Advanced Energy Design Guide for Grocery Stores. Atlanta: ASHRAE.

21 ASHRAE. 2015. Refrigeration Commissioning Guide for Commercial and Industrial Systems. Atlanta: ASHRAE.

Food production systems

STEFANO MASINI, FRANCESCO CIANCALEONI

Coldiretti Environment and Territory area

1. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 1.1. Data Energy consumption in agriculture In energy terms, the agricultural sector has relatively low fuel consumptions. The National Energy Balance report (NEB 2013) shows that the final energy consumption in the agricultural sector amounted to 2% of the total (considering industry, transport and the civil sector) and in the period from 2000 to 2013 consumptions were marked by a reduction of 15%. As for the sources and types of energy use, as far as the final energy consumption in agriculture (and fishing) is concerned, about 70% relates to fuels, 15% to electricity and 15% in the form of heat (mostly for the drying produce and air conditioning in greenhouses). As a supply source in agriculture (including the agribusiness sector), 85% is still attributed to "fossil energy", while 15% relates to electrical energy. On a domestic level, the final energy consumptions in agriculture appear to be a total of 2.25 Mtoe, as shown in the table below referring to 2011.

Greenhouses Open fields Total Tonnes (toe) (toe) (toe) Diesel fuel (1) 477,024 52,624 389,065 441,689 Plant protection 143,000 9,713 378,179 387,892 (2) Fertilisers (3) 4,400,000 32,225 1,036,724 1,068,949 Plastic materials for 85,000 263,793 - 263,793 greenhouses (4) Mulching films 40,000 - - 96,551 Total (toe) 2,258,874 (1) irrigation, working the soil, climate control of various utilities (ENAMA, 2007)

(2) plant protection product distribution (ISTAT, 2011)

(3) fertiliser distribution (ISTAT, 2012)

(4) “Agricultural system supply chains for energy and energy efficiency” (ENEA, 2011)

The information contained herein applies only to the consumer items specifically referred to agriculture (fuels sold at discounted prices and electricity invoiced for agricultural use) and do not include consumption for residential customers. In view of this, it is believed that the official figures may be underestimated and that the annual consumption of the sector reaches at least 10 Mtoe.

1.2. Critical issues Although agriculture all in all does not weigh much on domestic consumption, some sectors are energy intensive and, in these cases, the costs of production related to energy are in the order of 10-15% compared to turnover and even exceed 25-30%, as for example, in the case of greenhouse farming and aquaculture. In this context, the agricultural sector has to make a contribution in terms of savings and energy efficiency, as farms, in general, have a high energy requirement to satisfy:

 the electrical consumption (pumping, milking equipment, animal feed, refrigeration, conveyors, lighting, processing plants and processing agricultural products, etc.);

 the heat consumption (heating of greenhouses, heating of buildings, process heat for processing and transforming products, winter and summer climatization, areas for board and lodging and farm holiday accommodation, wineries, etc.);

 the fuel consumption (machines for tilling, harvesting, plant protection, irrigation, transportation of produce, etc.).

Such energy consumption could be significantly reduced through efficiency improvements in the production systems and infrastructures. As reported in the studies by ENEA, however, to date access to energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources in agriculture is hampered by a number of obstacles, namely of the following nature:

 bureaucratic/legal: authorisation procedures are too complex, ambiguous interpretations, landscape restrictions or other stringent constraints;

 social/cognitive: lack of information on technologies based on the RES available today and the benefits achieved from their integration into the agribusiness system;

 economic/financial: difficult access to credit and lack of available funding for its investment projects.

24 On the first point, in particular, emphasis is given to the energy efficiency incentive system (thermal account decree and white certificates mechanism), farms still fail to identify tools that are functional to their characteristics and their role. More specifically, for example, in formulating the thermal account decree, what could possibly have been the most important objective and, that is, to introduce a stimulus for the recovery of forest management was not grasped. In fact, in the field of thermal energy in Italy there is a real paradox: with respect to a substantial forest area (the overall forestry data is of about 10 million hectares) our country is the world's largest importer of wood for burning and the fourth with reference to wood chips and wood waste. Along the same lines, the current energy efficiency incentive system (white certificates), being tailored for purely industrial needs, does not fulfil the purpose of disseminating actions for efficiency improvement in agriculture.

1.3. Practical proposals Although consumption is not high, the agricultural sector is likely to improve its energy performance further, both through efficiency improvement processes that can affect some sectors, and through the production of renewable energy for self- consumption. More generally, the sector can ensure energy saving and efficiency also through the dissemination of production and consumption models oriented towards the reduction of emissions from the transportation of the raw material (short chain, "0" km, farmer market) and absorption of carbon by soil and plants that contribute to offsetting national emissions related to other sectors.

Energy efficiency measures in the agricultural chains In terms of energy efficiency measures in the agriculture sector, the following are a few examples from among those identified by ENEA within the definition of a potential scenario for 2020.

ESTIMATED SUPPLY CHAIN MEASURE ENERGY SAVING An energy saving of 38,999 Horticultural crops Reduction of food product residues Toe is forecast in 2016 and of 194,999 Toe in 2020 Installation of small cogenerator systems A fossil fuel energy saving of (<200 kW) in the context of farms that have 54,271 Toe is estimated in Farm-stays implemented farm-stays among their 2016 and 271,356 Toe in activities 2020 An energy saving of Greenhouse plastic Innovative plastic materials for covers 1,411,476 Toe is forecast in materials 2020 Application of policies, systems and By 2016, a reduction of 20% Greenhouse systems integrated technologies that improve energy in the energy consumption for

25 efficiency and enable the use of renewable climatising greenhouses can sources, progressively eliminating the be achieved and by 2020 the consumption of fossil fuels for climatising figure is estimated at 100% greenhouses Plant Protection/ Introduction of alternative tillage systems for A reduction of 1,190-1,553 3 Fertilizers field crops m /ha/year of CO2 emissions Use of wood biomass energy potentially obtainable from national forests (wood from Forest Biomass 6,000 ktoe/year coppice and forest residues)

Use of biomass energy potentially obtainable Annual and perennial from annual herbaceous crops (sorghum) and 400 ktoe/year herbaceous crops perennial herbaceous crops (miscanthus, reed and panic) Energy recovery from residual biomass Residual biomass (straw, stalks, fruit residues, vines, olive 250 ktoe/year residues) Production of thermal energy from livestock Biogas Thermal energy biogas and agro-industrial residues and 790 GWh/y biomass Biogas Electricity Production of electricity from livestock 9,484 GWh/y until 2020 Production of electricity and heat from the Poultry industry 30 ktoe/y poultry sector Chemical processing of oilseeds (rapeseed, Biodiesel soybean, corn, sunflower), through an 1,890 ktoe/y until 2020 esterification process Fermentation of agricultural produce rich in carbohydrates and sugar, made up alcohol Bioethanol 890 ktoe/year within 2020 producing crops (corn, wheat, sorghum and lignocellulosic wastes) Use of biomass energy from the cultivation Short Rotation Forestry of short rotation wood (eucalyptus, poplars, 200 ktoe/year (SRF) willows and locust-tree) Use of biomass energy from the Urban Parks 358,853 Toe/year until 2020 management of urban parks

Regulatory review measures The measures related to thermal energy incentivising must be such that the incentives provide a stimulus for the recovery of forest management, favouring the forest-wood-energy chain. In fact, the current incentivising system has turned out to be ineffective in achieving this goal (in all likeliness, it risks increasing imports of wood fuel from abroad with little guarantee of environmental sustainability). Besides the well-known territorial, social and landscape values, a relaunch of forest management could make a decisive contribution to achieving the goals of the National Action Plan, according to which biomass (amongst these is the important role of wood products) will cover 44% of the consumption of renewable sources and 58% of the total heat consumption by 2020 providing biomass using sustainable methods (both production and cutting). Even in the field of energy efficiency in agriculture the regulatory gap needs to be bridged. The white certificate system should be reviewed as a whole also in relation to

26 several specific features of the agricultural sector, many of which are in common with small and medium-sized enterprises in general. Among the main factors that currently prove limiting it should be noted, for example, that no suitable methods have been defined to regulate the relationship between the recipients of incentives (Esco, etc.) and those who actually support investments to improve energy efficiency. Even the minimum size needed to achieve the right to certificates is an obstacle for small and medium agricultural enterprises to access to this system. Last, but not least, in addition to the lack of harmonisation between the different incentives for energy efficiency (white certificates, thermal account decree, tax deductions), are the difficulties related to the cumulation of these measures compared to other supports to which the agricultural enterprises can gain access. To achieve the goals of the national and EU legislation, in view of the inadequacy of the tools to support energy efficiency that are currently available for agriculture, the primary sector should be able to access benefits and relief from administrative burdens as well as new technical knowledge by initiating a program of specific initiatives to stimulate and implement measures to promote efficiency, saving, self-production and renewable energy used on farms. This commitment, in addition to contributing positively to the energy and environmental balance of the whole national production system would lead to a reduction in costs for agricultural businesses and, therefore, to a more competitive sector. In order to achieve tangible results on a national scale, a system approach in all regions is necessary, so that targeted actions can be implemented evenly throughout the country, focusing on results that are certainly more effective than isolated and sporadic initiatives, which have not been planned or coordinated properly.

2. AGRICULTURE AND CONTROL OF CLIMATE-CHANGING EMISSIONS The role of the agriculture and forestry sector in the context of climate mitigation is of considerable importance, especially as regards the positive contribution related to the absorption of carbon by the soil and plants, as well as the possibility of producing sustainable renewable energy sources, starting from agricultural waste and residues. Moreover, as mentioned previously, to be added is also the promotion of forms of production, marketing and consumption aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

2.1. Data In terms of emission responsibility, according to the latest data released by ISPRA, 6.9% of national emissions can be attributed to the agriculture sector. In detail, the emissions recorded relate to the production of nitrous oxide (N2O), accounting for 57% of emissions in the sector deriving from livestock manure management, the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers and other emissions from agricultural soils, while methane emissions (CH4) – accounting for 43% of the total emissions in the sector – derive from the digestive processes of reared animals, manure management and rice cultivation. As for these two gases, it must be said that the contribution of agriculture to mitigate emissions is overall positive: in fact, from 1990 to 2011, there was a reduction of 17.7%, with no significant difference between the two greenhouse gases. These reductions are due to the decrease of CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation (-12%) and those relating to agricultural soils (-21%), amounting to a good 46% of the total. These percentages of reduction are due to several factors, such as, for example, the drop in the number of animals for certain livestock species, the variation of agricultural areas and production, rationalisation of fertilising and recovery of biogas from livestock manure. On the other hand, CO2 (carbon dioxide) emission and absorption is due to changes in land use and forests and is accounted for as part of the so-called LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) sector and in total contribute significantly to the mitigation of national emissions thanks to absorption by the soil and forests (the so- called carbon sinks). In fact, in our country, the sinks recorded according to LULUCF exceed the emissions significantly, therefore, largely offsetting the emission responsibilities of agriculture, which are mostly attributable to the livestock sector. The information contained in the environmental data annual by Ispra (2012) helps to analyse the estimated carbon content in various forest reservoirs. If a comparison of the data pertaining only to 2011 is made, the incidence of the LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) entry, which expresses the CO2 sinks by Italian forests, shows that 6.4% of the total emissions is reached. This figure can also be confirmed according to what has been published, always by ISPRA, in the 1990-2012 Italian Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The National Inventory Report 2014 (including calculations for the year 2012), which clearly shows how the

28 LULUCF entry significantly contributes to the achievement of the Kyoto objectives. In fact, quantification of CO2 sinks (to be subtracted from the emissions) by national forests, amounts to about 31 million tons of CO2eq for 2010, 19 million tons/CO2eq for 2011 and 18.5 million tons/CO2eq for 2012. The incidence of these sinks is likely to bring the reduction percentage of national emissions during the period observed (2010-2012) to -14.34% (accounting the LULUCF entry).

2.2. Critical issues Compared to the positive contribution of the sector in terms of carbon sinks, the expectations by forest owners to apply for an internalization instrument for rendering such a service to the community, at least partly, is more than legitimate (considering that 60% of the forest area accounted for is privately owned). It is to be remembered that in our country, sink accounting concerns only the forest areas and does not recognise the right of private individuals to access the so-called "carbon credits". In addition to the problem regarding legal ownership of carbon credits is also the lack of common agroforestry sink accounting methods in line with the IPCC standards. The result is the lack of any form of economic recognition for agroforestry businesses contributing to carbon sinks, since they cannot even spend their credits in the voluntary markets without incurring the "double accounting" (simultaneous use of these credits in the institutional market by the State, and in the voluntary market by businesses). Moreover, in the absence of reference standards, the use of sufficiently credible and reliable climatic-environmental certifications is also difficult to implement on a technical and methodological level, which could, on the other hand, prove to be an interesting competitive instrument on the markets for agricultural enterprises.

2.3. Operational proposals It is very important to proceed with recognition of legal ownership of carbon credits by the agroforestry businesses that produce them. The perfecting of clear and unambiguous rules at an institutional level for accounting and the allocation and exchange of carbon credits is functional to both the definition of appropriate incentive mechanisms - which can act as a stimulus to maximise the potential carbon sink in agriculture through the dissemination of "good practices" – as well as the possibility of accessing new markets that are particularly sensitive to the adoption of climatic and environmental certifications by businesses (e.g. carbon footprint), whether they relate to the product, process or, in perspective, the "territory". Another line of action is closely related to the reduction in agricultural process emissions. To this regard, there is the need to introduce or maintain agricultural practices that contribute to climate change mitigation or favour the adaptation to them and that they are compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment, the landscape and its features, the natural resources, the soil and genetic diversity.

29 By way of example, some useful practices to mitigate climate change that could qualify for support (also part of the PSR) are reported below:

 conservation agriculture: the contribution of organic carbon in the form of crop residues reduces the rate of mineralisation of organic matter and therefore the losses due to the reduction of soil aeration due to not performing ploughing;

 conversion of arable land into grassland or meadows, along with the development of agroforestry, are two important opportunities in terms of increasing organic matter through the supply of biomass and of reducing the rate of mineralisation;

 activities for the conservation of high biodiversity areas such as hedges, groves, trees

in line, buffer strips, favouring atmospheric CO2 sequestration in the soil, as well as mitigating the effects of pollutants and reducing erosion phenomena;

 reduction of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock and crops.

Of particular importance is the last point, as the livestock sector is the most responsible in terms of emissions. The importance of reducing the impacts of farming intensity on the various environmental compartments is evident, by adopting consumption and production patterns which, by size, characteristics and operating modes can at the same time guarantee attention to the environmental, ethical and health components; respect for the local communities and the traditional forms of agriculture and good living conditions for the animals. First, the need to ensure greater efficiency in livestock production must be emphasised, considering it unthinkable that the growing demand can be satisfied by proportionally increasing the number of reared animals. The production increases should therefore be related to improved efficiency of the livestock systems in converting the natural resources into food and reducing waste. Nowadays, livestock farmers have several options to mitigate the impact of their activities, for example, by carefully choosing the production model, animal nutrition, storage methods and management of effluents; or, again, by choosing suitable systems to reduce water and energy consumption, avoiding the use of drugs and substances that are dangerous for the animal and for humans, adopting solutions for animal welfare or deciding to convert the production into organic farming. Therefore, in selecting a model of sustainable farming, the number of cattle must be adapted to the available space. In this context, for example, the sustainable management of pastures helps to reduce emissions related to farming. Among the possible measures are the prevention of overgrazing and rotation of land used to feed livestock. This will not compromise, but, rather, further develop the carbon sinks and, at the same time, also prevent soil erosion in the pastures. With reference to animal feed, the feed rations given to cattle should receive specific attention and be reconsidered in order to reduce the formation of methane in the digestive system of ruminants, without slowing production. By improving livestock

30 nutrition and productivity emissions related to the rearing of dairy animals can be reduced. Even genetic selection related to breeds of cattle, sheep and goats, obtaining animals that can emit a reduced amount of methane, it is a powerful tool to improve the environmental impact due to emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases. The development of biogas plants for the production of energy from livestock waste also contributes significantly to the reduction of methane emissions in accordance with the criteria of economy and sustainable management. Again, it should be noted how an indication on meat labels relating to the type of production method used is an aid to consumer choices, guiding as much as possible towards production systems that are more sustainable from an environmental viewpoint. Processing and distribution companies can monitor their environmental impact by adopting environmental management systems. In this way, they can monitor their inputs and outputs and commit to reducing them, where possible: i.e. the amount of energy, water and raw materials used and the amount of pollutants released into the environment in the form gas, liquid or solid (waste). Large retailers can then foster and promote the use of local farm products, reducing the amount of greenhouse gases deriving from transport over long distances and organic products, increasing consumer awareness about the benefits of this type of farming. Even restaurant owners can implement this policy, focusing on the short chain and supplies from organic farms and local producers: in this way the caterer and, indirectly, the customers support the agricultural economy of the place and at the same time reduce part of its contribution to greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

3. THE CONTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURE TO ENERGY PRODUCTION Although the predominant role of agriculture is related to food production and quality enhancement through the recognition of the consumer’s needs, the design of multi-functionality identifies a new area of investment in the production of energy and placement on the market. It is a function which, nevertheless, must be integrated with the primary one, while preserving its methods. In fact, agriculture can secure a leading role in the field of investments in renewable energy only by not sacrificing the sustainability and protection of the territory. Indeed, interactions between renewable sources, agriculture and territory call for careful environmental planning that is able to size power plants and properly assess the environmental, logistic and social impact. With the tremendous growth of renewables in the national energy production mix, the so-called distributed generation and short energy chain, are also the new role models for sustainable energy, both in terms of the energy and carbon balance, as well as the environmental, social and economic aspects. It should be noted, however, that in terms of infrastructure, the distributed generation power system is likely to antagonise the one based on large power plants. The transformation process of the national energy system, in this sense, has been marked by several paradoxes. The development of renewable energy in our country was originally (and incorrectly) managed essentially by applying the industrial logic and economies of scale, losing sight of environmental sustainability, which was the basis of the indications of the Kyoto Protocol (from which the whole issue of renewables

31 originates). Hence the birth of large power stations fuelled by biomass imported from long distances, favouring deforestation and causing the displacement of the target production of some areas, with serious repercussions on the availability and/or price of food. In such cases the emissions from transportation of raw materials have often ended up affecting the environmental benefits related to the replacement of fossil fuels. These considerations have long characterised the national and international political debate, so much that the European Union itself decided to review strategies and targets on "first generation" biofuels at first by subordinating and linking the production to precise sustainability criteria, to more recently start a process to reduce their quantitative production target as of 2020. Despite some initial errors and a substantial underestimation of the real potential of the agricultural and forestry sector in the energy field, the contraction of agricultural incomes and rising energy costs that has occurred in recent years has gradually made agroenergy an increasingly "strategic" opportunity for the agricultural sector. Efficiency and energy saving, useful placement of production wastes and the need for income integration are factors of major interest for businesses, especially when they are combined with market opportunities related to growing consumer awareness of products made using clean energy and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. If the integration process between agriculture and energy production is also strongly supported by the Common Agricultural Policy, it is clear, on the other hand, that the relationship between the protection of the territory and the development of renewable energy requires precise balancing criteria to be determined, especially as part of the tools that have proven to be more influential in this respect, namely the authorisation procedures and differentiation of the incentives levels.

3.1. Data In terms of energy potential of the agricultural sector, according to the scenario of the 2020 National Action Plan (NAP), a total contribution of biomass is estimated at 5.67 Mtoe, of which 5.25 Mtoe from solid biomass, 0.26 Mtoe from biogas and 0.15 bioliquids. Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, it is believed that these potentials are underestimated. In fact, according to the National Energy Strategy (NES), which has extended the targets set by the NAP, renewable sources of energy should be a strength on which to build the energy future of the country going beyond the targets set by the NAP (17%) for the contribution of RES in the gross final consumption to reach 19-21%. Therefore, the NES needs to consider more balanced targets for the different RES. The following goals for 2020 have been identified as regards electricity, heating and transportation: The electricity sector - developing renewable energy up to 35-38% of the final consumptions (and potentially beyond), which is equal to approximately 120-130 TWh/year or 10-11 Mtoe. With this contribution, the renewable energy production is set to become the first component of the electricity generation mix in Italy, equalling gas generation. The heat sector - developing the production of energy up to 20% of final consumption (by 17% of the 20-20-20 targets), which is equal to about 11 Mtoe/year. An

32 increase in the production of thermal energy from biomass boilers is expected compared to what was initially estimated in the National Action Plan. The transport sector - The European target for 2020 relating to a contribution from biofuels equal to 10% of consumptions, or approximately 2.5 Mtoe/year is confirmed. In terms of contribution of the agricultural sector, the production of energy from biomass can provide a great contribution to the improvement of environmental emergencies in our country, and in Europe in general, fostering the development of a multifunctional agriculture and the capacity to provide a strategic contribution to the ecological conversion of many production chains, as well as to contribute to greater independence from the need to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, it is to be born in mind that the use of biomass as a renewable source can be achieved with two systems: one in which residual vegetable raw materials is recovered (forest maintenance, agriculture residues, the wood industry and the food industry), and one in which the vegetable raw material must be produced with specific energy crops before being harvested, processed and used. Residual biomasses, in particular, are a valuable resource on which to rely for energy production, considering that huge annual quantities are potentially available. A study conducted as part of " ENAMA (The National Authority for Agricultural Mechanisation) Biomass project" funded by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry, examined the potential for certain types of biomass, estimating that around 30 million tonnes are produced per year on a national level, corresponding to about 10 million tons of oil equivalent (Toe). Their exploitation as a renewable source, in addition to avoiding the substantial costs and the negative environmental impacts of improper waste disposal practices would generate additional economic benefits useful to the budget of many businesses that are in difficulty today. On the other hand, as regards dedicated crops, their impact in terms of using agricultural land for food crops need to be assessed. At present, in fact, the production of plant biomass for energy purposes affects several thousands of hectares, allocated to various biofuel chains (solid, liquid and gaseous fuels) and scaremongering are due to the risks of competition between the food target crops, animal feed and the production of textile fibres and materials, compared to those for energy (fuel). Proper planning for the development of the bioenergy industry will have to ensure a fair distribution of these crops throughout the country, focusing in particular on crop rotation or on the recovery of fallow land, which is at risk of being marginalised or subject to recovery as a result of reclamation of contaminated areas, for production. With this in mind, a medium term scenario of the order of one million hectares can be imagined. In terms of land use or of competition between energy and food production crops, in relation to the distortive aspects from incentivation of photovoltaic and large biogas plants (concentrated in the Po valley and corn powered), it should be noted that, according to the data from GSE, as of 31/12/2013 approximately 13,843 hectares were taken up by ground mounted photovoltaic systems, while it is estimated that the total agricultural area used to grow crops for biogas plants could currently exceed 200,000 hectares.

3.2. CRITICAL ISSUES (LAND USE AND ZONING CONFLICTS) EVOLUTION OF INCENTIVES AND TERRITORIAL IMPACTS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (RES) The "spring" of incentives has decisively influenced the way in which RES have spread in Italy, losing sight, at least at the initial stage, of the conditions that a proper incentive system should meet, and that is, to actually be based on transparent economic and environmental assessment standards; to have a long-term horizon; to promote energy efficiency; to consider the effective productivity and efficiency of the technologies and be accompanied by a mechanism to assess and verify the costs for the community. Incentives that were not properly balanced and introduced by the first "energy account" (for solar photovoltaic power) and the decrees establishing the mechanism of green certificates and feed-in tariffs (0.28 €/kWhe) for wind and biomass, instead, determined unexpected negative territorial impacts from oversized power plants that were not integrated with the landscape and the local economy Data from GSE shows a growth in the number and power of biogas and biomass plants in recent years. (for more details, see chapter "The generation of energy from agricultural biomass - An overall picture")

Another element of distortion is the fact that, during the initial phase of disseminating renewable energy sources, incentives did not follow the market evolution, resulting in an extreme favourability towards the installation of certain types of systems (photovoltaic and wind power, in particular) driven by speculation.

This approach, among other things, led to proceeding in the development of renewable energy without assigning any supporting priority to businesses and to the energy production techniques, characterised by higher levels of energy efficiency and

34 environmental sustainability, preferring an undifferentiated approach aimed essentially at achieving quantitative targets.

Moreover, in terms of technological evolution, during the early stages of agro- energy development, further efforts turned out to be necessary so that plant technologies could be adapted to the size of the plants and structures of the national agricultural and livestock production businesses made up mainly of small and medium enterprises (for example, as regards the biogas sector, no consideration had been made for the fact that in the national rearing farm compartment, SMEs accounted for over 70% of the total, whereas the minimum biogas plant sizes initially present on the market were dimensioned for far larger-sized farms).

Over time, however, these technological gaps were at least partly filled and also on a regulation level, there was an understanding of how the development of renewable energy could remain apart from careful territorial planning. The differentiation of subsidized rates and the definition of the authorisation procedures have, in fact, proven to be tools to be used with caution and foresight, in response, first, to the needs of those who pay (the consumer) and to those who work and live on (and from) the land (the farmer).

Despite the progress recorded over recent years, not all contrasting issues seem to have been solved and the issue relating to territorial compatibility of energy plants is still paramount.

The Earth “Battle” In the wake of unbalanced incentivising, the spread of renewable energy was also accompanied by negative impacts on the territory. In addition to the loss of agricultural land caused by ground-mounted photovoltaic systems and the negative interference of the "great wind farming" system with the countryside. Even with biogas energy we have seen the spread of over-sized plants that have generated controversy on the priority target of land use (food vs. energy).

Photovoltaic systems Thanks to a particularly convenient incentivising scheme, the first real boom in photovoltaic energy in Italy took place in 2010 and continued through 2011 when the plants even tripled in relation to the previous year. However, concerning the opportunity of using covered areas (sheds, barn roofs, etc.) in the early stages of photovoltaic energy dissemination we have witnessed, however, an increase in ground-mounted systems, with the consequent problems of losing agricultural land and of negative impacts on the landscape and environment The spread of ground photovoltaic systems also depended on the difference between the gross margin of the agricultural activity and the offers to farmers by specialised companies for the lease of land for the installations. During the period covered by the IV Energy Account these deals reached 2,000-3,000 €/ha/year, compared to a considerably lower gross margin per hectare guaranteed by the "replaced" main

35 crops (500 to 700 € for grain, 300 -500 € for soybeans, 400-700 € for rape and 400-800 € for corn).

Concern about the heavy use of agricultural land and the landscape impacts caused by the photovoltaic systems caused a heated media and political debate on the need to impose appropriate restrictions. In fact, in some regions, the ground-mounted phenomenon has assumed alarming proportions, contributing to endorse the need to find a remedy to the situation by reducing incentives to the entire compartment, in relation to the excessive costs to the consumers in their bills (A3 tariffs). As a result, in 2011 the first restrictions to incentivising ground-mounted photovoltaic systems were applied. Article 10, paragraphs 4 and 5 of legislative decree n° 28 dated 3 March 2011 ordered that "for ground-mounted solar photovoltaic systems installed in agricultural areas, access to government incentives is subject to the condition that, in addition to the requirements of Annex 2: a) the nominal power of each plant is not more than 1 MW and, in the case of land belonging to the same owner, the systems are installed at a distance not less than 2 kilometres; b) not more than 10 percent of the farmland area available to the offerer is intended for installation of PV systems. These limitations are not applicable to lands that have been disused for at least 5 years. Nevertheless, it is in 2012 that “ground-mounted” photovoltaic systems are finally excluded from incentive eligibility. Article 65 of Legislative Decree n° 1 dated 24 January 2012, setting out the urgent provisions for competition, infrastructure development and competitiveness (in force since 25 March 2012 and converted with amendments by Law n° 27 of 24 March 2012) states the following: «1. Ground-mounted solar photovoltaic systems installed in agricultural areas are not eligible for State incentives pursuant to Legislative Decree n° 28 dated 3 March 2011. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to plants implemented and to be implemented on military property and ground-mounted photovoltaic systems to be installed in areas that are classified as agricultural land on the date of entering into force of the law converting the present decree, which have achieved qualification by the date of entering into force of the law converting this decree; in any case, provided that the plant comes into operation within one hundred and eighty days after the date of entering into force of the law converting this decree. Those facilities must still comply with the conditions set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 10 of Legislative Decree n° 28 dated 3 March 2011. Moreover, exception is made as provided for in paragraph 6 of Article 10 of Legislative Decree n° 28 dated 3 March 2011, provided that the plant is put into operation within sixty days from the date of entering into force of the law converting this decree»

Despite the block on incentives, GSE data show nevertheless show that on 31 December 2013, approximately 13,843 hectares are occupied by ground-mounted photovoltaic systems. Note that the data refers only to the area of the panels installed, so

36 in terms of agricultural land, the damage caused by the dissemination of this type of system should be considered much more important.

“Ground-mounted” and “non ground-mounted” systems at the end of 2013

It is also to be said that with the exclusion of ground-mounted photovoltaic systems from the incentives, the problem of territorial impacts of solar systems is only partially solved, as the Decree does not exclude incentives for thermodynamic solar energy systems that cause the same problems. In fact, considering that the installation of thermodynamic solar energy systems in vocational farming areas is not affected by the incentive ban its use has become widespread and remains a source of concern as to the impact it has on land removal and water consumption, especially in some areas of the country (Sardinia), where the interest of multinational corporations is becoming more pressing.

Wind energy systems The visual impact is the most important barrier to the spread of large wind farms. Very often, in fact, the placement of the wind turbines can involve areas of significant environmental and landscape value. Large plants can, therefore, contradict the need to protect the overall landscape scenario and view of the ridges. The low social acceptance of large wind farm installations also originates from the way in which large industrial groups initially gained the necessary authorisations. For years interventions have been authorised without consulting the local communities and often resorting to expropriation for public utility. Given the high level of incentives, investments have also attracted capital of dubious origin with numerous cases of mafia infiltration and corruption.

37 The delayed enactment of the national guidelines, which are the main instrument to counteract the uncontrolled spread of large plants in the area, has further contributed to this phenomenon spreading, which has however compromised the integrity of many areas of agricultural interest of the country. Against a total number of 1,386 plants (GSE 2013) the Italian regions in which the problem has taken on a considerably greater negative impact due to the concentration of large wind farms in areas of agricultural interest are Apulia (where there is a concentration of 33% of the total number of installations), Basilicata, Sicily and Campania, followed by Tuscany, Calabria and Sardinia.

Biomasses The lack of a preventive and comprehensive analysis of the environmental and territorial impacts that has characterised the advent of renewable energy, both in Europe and in Italy, has resulted in numerous critical environmental issues and a consequent ongoing regulatory review process. Below are some examples of "ongoing" interventions on a Community and national level that have affected the biomass sector after determining the quantitative targets. In fact, the interventions are aimed at reconfiguring the relationship between renewable sources and territory or at reducing the negative environmental impacts that had not been envisaged previously.

The spread of renewable energy sources and the new energy model: Distributed generation Law n° 159 dated 1 October 2007: Urgent interventions in economic and financial matters for development and social equity, converted into Law n° 222 of 29 November 2007 (so-called connected to the Finance Act 2008) and Law n° 244 of 24 December 2007: The provisions for preparation of the annual and multi-year State budget (Finance Act 2008) was a real turning point in the national energy policy by introducing: the concept of short chain (energy generated from agricultural raw materials, farming and forestry, including the by-products obtained within a radius of 70 kilometres from the plant); - certification of traceability for the agro-energy chain from the short chain; - a multiplying factor of incentives depending on the raw material.

Biomass traceability With the decree of the Italian Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry of 2 March 2010, Implementation of Law n° 296 of 27 December 2006, on the traceability of biomasses for the generation of electrical energy, the following were established: a) how to ensure the origin and traceability of biomass in order to grant green certificates with the application of the multiplying factor k = 1.8, pursuant to Article 1, section 382-quater of Law n° 296 of 2006. b) the requirements to qualify the origin of the biomasses. With circular letter n° 5520 issued by the Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry of 31 March 2010, the rules relating to traceability of the entire production cycle of agricultural matter used to produce pure vegetable oils intended for the production of electricity.

Biofuel and bioliquid sustainability Articles 17 to 20 of Directive n° 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, introduce the sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids in order to: (a) measure compliance with the requirements of the directive concerning national targets; (b) measure compliance with renewable energy obligations; (c) determine the eligibility for financial support for the consumption of biofuels and bioliquids. In addition to introducing specific sustainability criteria, with this process the EU opens the path to downward review of the production goals and consumption of first generation biofuels (those that subtract agricultural land from food crops) as it is concerned about the impact on land use.

New European criteria to exclude highly biodiverse grasslands from the cultivation of raw materials for biofuels. The EU’s path of "rethinking" biofuels, with particular reference to their environmental sustainability, is continued with the definition of criteria to prevent the cultivation of raw materials, intended, in fact, for the production of biofuels and bioliquids in highly biodiverse grasslands. As a matter of fact, Commission Regulation (EU) N° 1307/2014 defines the criteria and geographic ranges of highly biodiverse grassland for the purposes of implementing Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC stating that biofuels and bioliquids can qualify for the incentives only if they are not produced from raw materials obtained from land which, as of January 2008, had a high value in terms of biodiversity. The new regulation, therefore, states that "natural highly biodiverse grassland” is intended as grassland where there has been no human intervention and which maintains the natural species composition and ecological characteristics and processes. This definition excludes land subject to human intervention, degraded land and land that are home to a variety of endangered species, endemic, migratory or congregatory, or land constituting seriously threatened ecosystem, as these are defined as " not natural highly biodiverse grasslands". Article 3 of the regulation, however, states that the habitats listed in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC; habitats which are of significant importance to the animal and plant species of EU interest, in Annexes II and IV of Directive 92/43/EEC and the habitats that are of significant importance to the wild bird species, in Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC are always considered highly biodiverse grassland. Regulation (EU) N° 1307/2014, published in the Official Journal of the European Union n° L351 of 9 December 2014, will be applied as of 1 October 2015.

Redefinition of the European objectives for first-generation biofuels

39 The review process of the European objectives for biofuels began in September 2013 when, through the approval of a draft law, the European Parliament adopted new rules to establish a ceiling relating to the use of traditional biofuels for a quick switch to new biofuels deriving from alternative sources, such as algae and waste. According to studies on the Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) and, that is on the emissions from indirect land use change that can eliminate most of the environmental benefits of biofuels, the EU has decided to review the 2020 targets for the transport sector, establishing that first-generation biofuels (from food crops) should not exceed 6% of the final energy consumption. On the other hand, in relation to the target of 10% by 2020, advanced or last-generation biofuels from algae or certain types of waste, should amount to at least 2.5% of the energy consumption in the transport sector. More recently (28 April 2015) a further proposal to amend legislation stipulates that first-generation biofuels (derived from crops on agricultural land) should, by 2020, reach no more than 7% of total energy consumption in the transport sector. Fuel suppliers must report to the EU countries and the European Commission the estimated level of greenhouse gas emissions caused by "Indirect Land Use Change" (ILUC); that is to say, making more food crops available in order to compensate for the change to biofuel production. The Commission must report and publish data on emissions linked to ILUC and report to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers on the possibility of including the values for emissions linked to the ILUC in the existing sustainability criteria.

The national certification system for biofuel and bioliquid sustainability. For the purposes of Article 7-bis, paragraph 5 of Legislative Decree n° 66 of 21 March 2005, as introduced by paragraph 6 of Article 1 of Legislative Decree n° 55 of 31 March 2011 and of Articles 24, 33, 38 and 39 of Legislative Decree n° 28 of 3 March 2011 and also to ensure the reliability of information that contributes to demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids, and the social and environmental information provided by economic operators belonging to their production chain is established through an appropriate level of independent verification, Ministerial Decree of 23 January 2012: National certification system for biofuels and bioliquids, sets forth: a) the operating mode of the national certification system for biofuel and bioliquid sustainability; b) the procedures for joining the system; c) the procedures for verification of the information obligations referred to in article 7-quater, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree n° 66 of 21 March 2005, as introduced in paragraph 6 of Article 1 of Legislative Decree n° 55 of 31 March 2011; d) the provisions that operators and suppliers must comply with to use the mass balance method in art. 7-quater, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree n° 66 of 21 March 2005 as introduced by paragraph 6 of Article 1 of Legislative Decree n° 55 of 31 March 2011.

Biogas As already mentioned, incentives in the biogas sector initially directed investments towards the spread of oversized installations (in relation to the availability of biomass on

40 site) and characterised by the almost exclusive use of the corn, while it is known that it is the biogas produced from livestock waste to ensure a greater percentage reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases than all other renewable energy sources. In addition, through the feed-in tariffs, the incentivising system for the production of electricity from biogas has not proven to be able to take into account the impacts related to the production model that was initially proven more convenient from an economic standpoint, namely that based on large-sized plants (999 kW). The need to supply corn to numerous large biogas plants, among other things concentrated in certain areas of the country, has brought negative effects in terms of environmental and territorial sustainability. As a matter of fact, in the affected areas, the competition between the use of corn for food and energy has led to several problems, including a soaring increase in the value of land lease and repercussions on the cost of milk production, in addition to an increase in the amount of digestate to be disposed of in a geographical area of limited size, which is already burdened with the problem of water pollution by nitrates. The issue has ended up unleashing much controversy, even by the farmers themselves, by street demonstrations aimed at stopping the spread of large biogas plants in the Po Valley. The boom in the use of biogas, in fact, has taken place much in the same way as an incentive system, which in the early stages did not provide any criteria in terms of size and fuelling mode of the power plants. The result being that between 2010 and 2011 (Data source: CRPA 2011 and Coldiretti data processing based on CRPA 2011 data): the systems have doubled (from 273 to 521), with a geographical distribution characterised by a concentration in the north of Italy: Lombardy (210 plants), Veneto (78) Piemonte (72) and Emilia Romagna (63); - the installed capacity has more than doubled (from 140 MW to 350 MW); - the average size has decisively been around the 1 MW (with 85% of the power plants being less than 1 MW in 2011 and, of these, 55% of between 500 and 999 kW); - the agricultural area for energy crops (corn in most cases) for fuelling biogas plants in 2011 exceeded 37,000 Ha (with a concentration in the north of Italy equal to that of the plants).

The number of plants also grew in 2012 (994 plants with a total installed capacity of 750 MWe), while other data shows that, in the period of maximum dissemination of “corn-fuelled plants" that is, immediately before the enactment of Ministerial Decree of 6 July 6, 2012 there was a sharp increase in number (+ 95% between 2011 and 2012) and in average power (+ 116% between 2011 and 2012), especially in areas where the cultivations were possible (the Po valley).

A "snapshot" of the sector (before the enactment of Ministerial Decree of July 6, 2012), clearly shows the predominance of large sized plants and the use of dedicated crops:

Biogas from crops and livestock farming in Italy at the end of 2012 Breakdown by type of supply Installed electric power

With the enactment of Ministerial Decree dated 6 July, 2012, that "states the procedure for incentives for the production of electricity from plants using renewable sources other than solar photovoltaic, new, fully 10 reconstructed, reactivated, subject to augmentation or reconstruction intervention, with a minimum output of 1 kW and coming into operation after the 31 December 2012 ", however, it was definitely taken note of the problem by introducing restrictions and bonuses designed to guide the production of biogas to lower environmental and land impact, limiting the use of dedicated crops. The Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012, in fact, introduces important incentive differences, depending on the raw materials used, size of the plant, environmental performance and the method of operation. The major changes in the incentive system introduced by the decree have been responsible for an impact on the profitability of the installations to the point that it was a definitely discouraging investment on large-sized plants fuelled exclusively by corn, favouring, instead, the power plants of between 300 and 600 kW, more appropriate to be characterized by greater use of livestock waste and less use of dedicated crops.

Biomethane With the publication of the Decree of 5 December 2013, the incentivising system for biomethane has been defined. The provision, implemented by Legislative Decree 28/2011, was long awaited even in terms of the potential involvement of the agricultural and livestock sector, given the fact that biomethane is an extension of the biogas chain, and therefore, producible from products and by-products of agricultural origin. The system provides three types of incentive for biomethane, differentiating the application

42 methods according to its intended use (the natural gas network, transport, employment in high-efficiency cogeneration plants for the production of electricity and heat). However, in perspective, as regards the possible benefits to the agricultural sector, the opportunities appear to be limited by several critical elements. One concern is the possibility that changes in electrical incentives, having, in fact, made high power biogas systems (1 MW) fuelled by energy crops inconvenient, push some operators to convert these systems into biomethane plants (since the incentivising decree for the latter does not take into account the territorial impacts caused by the supply chain). There is a risk, therefore, that many of the large systems that have taken advantage of the feed-in tariffs (0.28 c€/kW) at the end of their cycle can be given a new "role" to be able to adhere to the incentives provided for biomethane, circumventing the measures introduced by Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012 in terms of the limits for corn use.

3.3. Operational proposals The priorities for developing agro-energy ensuring territorial sustainability of renewable sources In view of the need to support agricultural investments for the production of renewable energy without damaging the land, the priorities are as follows:

1. maintain the current incentivising levels for biomass and biogas, particularly for small plants that are managed by farmers and keep to the criteria already defined in Legislative Decree 28/11 and Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012;

2. define limits for the installation of renewable energy plants in the agricultural field, not only related to landscape protection (as in the guidelines), but for reasons related to soil protection (e.g. thermodynamic solar systems) and water sources;

3. envisage the non financeability of thermodynamic solar systems on agricultural land, if it is not managed by farmers, who have an almost complete availability of the necessary land (given the extensive area required for such facilities, the installation of which calls for expropriation of farmland even to an extent of over 200 hectares per plant);

4. make sure that within the compulsory certification for the use of pure vegetable oils, the certification costs are compatible for the agricultural enterprise;

5. allow the use of pure vegetable oils as a farm fuel, without any limit;

6. biomethane: in line with the requirements for the electricity sector, take account of the need to enhance priority actions connected upstream to a sustainable livestock sector and not only the production facilities (biomethane is, in fact, an extension the chain of biogas).

43 Moreover, to promote better integration between the development of renewable energy sources and the territory, the implementation of national guidelines on a regional level for the protection of the landscape and the territory remains a priority. The guidelines, issued by the Ministry of Economic Development on 10 September 2010 have, in fact, the purpose of accompanying the authorisation procedures for energy plants using renewable energy sources, ensuring their proper integration into the landscape through the possibility by the regional administrations of identifying areas and sites to be declared unsuitable on the basis of several criteria: the use of design criteria to achieve the lowest possible consumption of the territory, making the most of available energy sources; the reuse of areas that have already been degraded by previous or current (brownfield) human activities, namely industrial sites, quarries, landfills and contaminated sites pursuant to Part IV, Title V of Legislative Decree n° 152 of 2006, making it possible to minimise direct and indirect environmental interferences related to land occupation and modification of its use for production purposes (with particular reference to territories that are not covered by artificial surfaces or greenfields), to minimise the interference arising from new infrastructures that are functional to the plant through the exploitation of existing infrastructures and, where necessary, reclamation and environmental restoration of land and/or groundwater; a design related to the specific area in which the intervention is implemented. With regard to localisation in agricultural areas, integration of the installation in the context of the local agribusiness traditions and rural landscapes, having regard both to its implementation and its operation. To be reiterated is that in authorising projects located in agricultural areas with agro-food quality production - organic produce, DOP (protected designation of origin), IGP (protected geographical indication, STG (Traditional Specialty Guaranteed), DOC (controlled designation of origin), DOCG (controlled designation of origin guaranteed) produce and traditional produce - and/or with particular value compared to the landscape and cultural context, the installation and operation of the plant must not impair or adversely interfere with the objectives pursued by the provisions on supporting the agricultural sector, particularly with reference to the promotion of local food traditions, the protection of biodiversity, as well as the cultural heritage and the rural landscape. With regard to identifying areas that are not suitable for plants fuelled by renewable sources, regions must perform a special investigation concerning the recognition of provisions aimed at protecting the environment, the landscape, the historical and artistic heritage, the local food traditions, biodiversity and the rural landscape, which identify protection goals that are not compatible with the installation of a specific type and/or size of plant.

Food vs. Energy, conflict or integration

MARINO BERTON

General Manager - AIEL

The purpose of this discussion is not to deal with a subject that deserves much more space and an in-depth examination from an analytical point of view, but to provide a contribution, which is certainly only a small part. I start from three premises that are known to most people, but are necessary to introduce this thought. The unacceptable denial of the right to food for an impressive multitude of human beings living on our planet still continues and is, in fact, growing. The causes of this authentic tragedy are not only related to adverse climatic or environmental conditions but, in many cases, are due to the oppression, the exploitation, the corruption and the cynical arrogance of those who trample over the most basic of human rights. Among the inalienable human needs, food cannot even get into a hierarchy; it remains primary and fundamental and is not negotiable. The fight against climatic change is one of the major challenges of our time. The close relationship between the consumption of fossil energy and "climate change" is not a hypothesis but an objective fact: two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to the energy sector. We must take urgent action to mitigate the damage that is already much too obvious and develop resilience to the phenomenon. The answers can only be global, based on a new concept of development in which the growth of a "green economy" can be a contribution towards change. The third premise is, in many respects, linked to the previous one: development and energy are elements which are closely linked. The possibilities of growth of a country are very slim if not zero without an adequate supply of energy, but the current energy model is based mainly on fossil fuels. These deposits are not widespread but concentrated only in some parts of the planet, likewise the powers of those who control the production and distribution of energy. The expansion of energy from renewable sources is one of the pillars of the green economy and a major tool to decarbonise the energy system, but it can also be a powerful tool to promote energy democracy; that is the right of every community to have access to energy.

We must therefore ensure food for everyone, but in doing so we cannot devastate the natural resources we have. We must also ensure that everyone can have access to energy, but if we achieved this goal mainly through fossil fuels, the effects of climate change would have negative impacts primarily on crops and agroforestry territories; effects that are already objectively found. We need to promote renewable energy, not for a privileged elite but for the benefit of all. In this general context lies the more specific theme of "food-energy". Is a model of sustainable development of renewable energy sources possible, particularly those that are directly related to the biological sphere and soil agroforestry,

45 which do not cause conflicts with the production of food and other produce in the agroforestry system? I believe the answer is yes, but this is a result to be achieved under certain conditions that assumes a non-ideological and unprejudiced approach. The real question is not FOOD or ENERGY, but FOOD and ENERGY. Assuming that one necessarily excludes the other is a mistake or, indeed, a preconception. I believe it is possible to produce mainstream food, in compliance with precise conditions, and at the same time contribute to the production of renewable energy, and through this, contribute to the economic development of the country and the local communities. The relationship between agriculture and energy is ancient. Even in rural areas of developed countries, before the combustion engine and the oil and gas era, about one third of farmlands was used for draft power and transport livestock (oxen and horses were the real driving force) and the production of wood for heating and cooking. As for the forest system, it has been a primary source of heating for generations and is still used even in a context of changing conditions and energy conversion technologies that today enable high levels of energy efficiency and low emissions. Since its inception, agriculture has never aimed at food production only but also at the production of other goods such as textile fibres (cotton, wool, silk, hemp, etc.), building materials, natural dyes, medicines and perfumes, and in the future will be increasingly called upon to produce biopolymers and other useful biobased products with reduced environmental impact. Moreover, these goods are also increasingly in demand and recognised by the primary function and service sector, such as soil conservation, maintenance of the territory and enhancement of the landscape, although almost never remunerated. So we can say that besides aiming at primarily producing food, agriculture has always produced other goods and services for humanity and will continue to do so. The critical point emerges when instead of being integrated, non-food production generated by the agricultural system takes over. The renewable energy sources more directly related to the primary sector are solid biomass (mainly wood biomass), biomass for the production of biofuels and biomass for biogas production. In all these types, we can find both critical issues or opportunities at the same time, depending on how they are defined and more so, in what context and in what type of territory they are implemented. We can use three examples to represent them on a negative and positive basis: - To urge deforestation of primary forests in Africa or South America so that wood biomass can be allocated to fuel large power plants in northern Europe is an unacceptable practice. To promote sustainable forest management with the aim of producing biomass for energy, for example, to power district heating networks serving local communities is a practice to be promoted;

- A viable alternative to fossil fuels is not the use of extensive arable lands for the production of biofuels, but the organisation of groups of farmers to produce biomethane for the haulage industry, through the use of manure, agro- industrial by-products and crop integration. This is definitely the right path to pursue;

46 - To produce electricity from biogas generated by dedicated undifferentiated crops is not a sustainable model, but to promote the efficient cogeneration obtained from biogas produced mainly by the use of products from crop- livestock integrated systems that do not subtract land for food, enhancing the digestate to improve soil fertility, is a positive opportunity for farmers and for the country.

These are but a few examples that certainly do not have the assumption of exhausting a much more structured picture of situations, but serve to outline a possible and feasible model as of now. It goes without saying that models, extents and solutions should not be generalised; conditions vary considerably depending on the different contexts of the agricultural realities of the planet. It would be unrealistic to disregard this, but suitable systems to seize the different opportunities available can be sought from time to time.

Energy efficiency for an innovative and sustainable agriculture system

CARLO ALBERTO CAMPIOTTI, ARIANNA LATINI, MATTEO SCOCCIANTI, CORINNA VIOLA

ENEA, UTEE (Energy Efficiency Technical Unit)

INTRODUCTION

The domestic agriculture and food system, based on their associated components and supply chains, namely agricultural production, the food industries, catering, distribution, trade and services, along with the system’s associated direct and indirect taxes, reaches an annual economic value of around 250 billion euro, of which at least 130 billion from the food industry and at least 50 billion from agriculture. Worldwide, the calculated amount of food produced is at least 5 billion tons a year, of which 2.4 billion tons of fruit and vegetables. While on the one hand, the economic importance of the "Food System" is the natural evolution of Italian society, on the other it is also due to the development of organised mass distribution (MD), which in a few years has practically overtaken the organisational models and business of the traditional sales channels. Organised mass distribution now holds 90% of the food market in France, more than 70% in Germany and the UK and over 50% in Spain and in Italy [1].

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Globally, the final consumption of fossil fuels associated with food, in its specific features of primary production and food industry, equals 491 EJ of the total primary energy (1 EJ = 278,000 MWh), divided into 427 EJ of non-renewable energy, 33 EJ renewable energy and 31 EJ of traditional biomass. In terms of final energy consumption, we have about 294 EJ/year divided in 8 EJ for the agriculture sector (fishing/aquaculture calculating a final consumption of 2 EJ/year), 98 EJ for the industry (the indirect energy is equal to 9 EJ/year), 92 EJ for buildings, 96 EJ for transport [2]. Compared to vegetable production, a key indicator to assess the energy efficiency of agricultural production is the ratio between the energy content of the product and the energy used to obtain it, considering that the energy expenses for both fresh and processed food products is not directly related to their calorie content, as it mostly depends on the efficiency of mechanical or biological converters (Table 1).

Table 1 – Solar conversion in edible plants

Cultivation Efficiency Tuber, root crops 0.6 – 2.0 Leafy and fruit horticultural crops 0.4 – 1.2 Cereals 0.3 – 1.0 Source: Roller, 1984.

In Italy, ENEA (Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Environment) has estimated a final energy consumption of around 17 Mtoe (17 million tons of oil equivalent) for the food system, understood in its broadest sense of agriculture and agro- industry. As regards the energy incorporated in the food, Table 2 highlights the energy expenditure for the production of food compared to the amount of energy supplied by the same foodstuffs.

Table 2 – Estimate on energy consumptions for food

Consumed Energy value per kg Food energy of edible portion (kWh/kg) (kWh/kg) Fresh meat (stable and slaughter 5.48 1.28 consumption) Frozen meat (stable, slaughter, 8.15 1.28 refrigeration) Fresh field vegetables (plant protection, 0.18 0.24 soil tillage) * Fresh vegetables in heated greenhouses 6.1 0.24 (plant protection, direct) ** IV range vegetables (production, 4.9 0.22 processing and transformation) *** Frozen vegetables (production, processing 6.8 0.22 and transformation, refrigeration) *** * Transport has not been considered. The values of the energy consumed refer to 15 kg/m2/year. ** Transport has not been considered. The values of the energy consumed relate to 25 kg/m2/year. The energy values have been taken from the INRAN (The National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research) food composition tables. The average energy value referred to the following has been considered: lettuce, tomato, pepper, cucumber, and strawberry. *** Transport has not been considered. The energy values have been taken from the INRAN (The National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research) food composition tables. The average energy value referred to the following has been considered: lettuce, tomato, pepper, and cucumber. Source: ENEA data, 2014.

According to Table 2, for some products the ratio values between energy input and

49 energy obtained are in excess of 10 (up to 30 for frozen vegetables). In particular, the high-energy consumption associated with the "cold chain" at a European level is evident in Fig.1 (ENEA data on Eurostat).

Figure 1 – Energy consumption in the transformation supply chain.

Another parameter to be considered for energy consumptions in the agricultural and food system, which is nonetheless important on the socio-economic side, is represented by food waste. According to Faostat, these are on average around 1/3 of all food commodities along the production chains, the food industry and final consumption. In industrialized countries, with a per capita availability of 900 kg/year, waste is between 95-115 kg/year/person, while in developing countries, with a per capita availability of 400 kg/year a waste of 6-11 kg/year/person is recorded. For Italy, Coldiretti reports 76 kg/year per capita of food waste (www.avvenire.it). Fig. 2 shows the data of an ENEA assessment [3] on greenhouse and open field waste.

Fig. 2 –Percentage of greenhouse and open field waste ⁪ Consumers; ⁪ Distribution and Marketing; ⁪ Processing; ⁪ Not harvested

MEASURES FOR ENERGY SAVING

According to surveys conducted by ENEA for the European project TESLA [4], for energy efficiency in agro-food SMEs, it was noticed that each of the possible operations to improve the efficiency of facilities and production processes has different investment costs and complexity, which range from the simple replacement of an electric motor or the installation of solar panels, to the redesign of installations with systems integration, modification of process machines and the recovery of energy wastes from

50 various production flows (Table 3). Numerous studies have shown that the application of measures for energy efficiency, such as the modifications in steam plants (boilers and heat distribution systems), in compressed air systems (involved in different processes such as drying, product transfer on conveyor belts, washing and husking of fruit and vegetables, packaging, etc.), in cooling and refrigeration processes, in heating and lighting of installations and buildings, which attain a saving from 15 to 25% of the total consumed energy. In addition, the production of heat from biomass available directly on site or steam production and cogeneration can provide hot water and electricity for industrial plants to dry fruit and vegetables, thereby increasing energy efficiency. The optimization of combustion efficiency, heat recovery from the exhaust gases and high-efficiency suitably sized engines can lead to an energy saving of 20-30%. Finally, particular attention should be paid to the mechanism of White Certificates introduced in Italy by Ministerial Decrees of 2001 and of 20 July 2004. The latest data from GSE (Energy Services Manager) on the issue of White Certificates reported a total of 31 million energy efficiency certificates (EEC) issued from 2006 to 2014, equivalent to primary energy savings of 20.4 Mtoe.

Table 3 – Schedule of proposed actions by the TESLA project for Energy Efficiency in fruit and vegetable processing industry

PROPOSAL ACTION Continuous monitoring of energy consumption. Reduction in the energy costs for services. Analysis Identification and monitoring of critical points in the aspect of energy. Recovery of thermal energy flows. Streamlining Streamlining of work processes and production of the food production industry. processes, Optimisation of consumptions and contracts with energy structures, suppliers. machinery and Energy optimisation of structures and buildings. equipment Take MEPS measures (Minimum Energy Performance Standards). Recycling of water and solid waste from manufacturing Saving fossil processes and transformation through anaerobic digestion energy processes for the production of biogas. Use of renewable sources (biomass, solar, biogas). Energy Efficiency Introduction of the Energy Manager role. and Renewable Incentives for energy efficiency (White Certificates for the Energy agro-food system, Ministerial Decree of 28 December 2012) [6] Sources: Tesla Project, 2013-2013; “RAEE 2012” ENEA 2013.

CONCLUSIONS Over the last decade there has been a strong interest in energy efficiency in the agro-food industry and compliance with MEPS (Minimum Energy Performance Standards) for engines, cooling systems and boilers, likewise the use of renewable

51 energy sources that represent effective solutions to reduce energy consumption and limit the effects of drastic environmental impact caused by technologically obsolete installations. The application of MEPS relating to electricity encourages the use of more efficient compressors and the design of heat exchangers, lighting, fans and controls. Finally, it should be noted that Legislative Decree no. 102/2014 attributes to the White Certificates no less than 60% of the target of primary energy savings by 2020, estimated at 26 Mtoe of final energy.

BIBLIOGRAFY

[1]. Campiotti C, Latini A, Scoccianti M, Biagiotti, Giagnacovo G, Viola C (2014). Energy efficiency in Italian fruit and vegetable processing industries in the agro- food sector context. Rivista di Studi sulla Sostenibilità Vol. 2: 159-174. [2]. Gustavsson J, Cederberg, Sonesson, van Otterdijk R, Meybeck A (2011). Global food losses and food wastes – extent, causes and prevention (www.fao.org). [3]. Campiotti CA, Scoccianti M, Viola C (2011). Le filiere del sistema agricolo per l’energia e l’efficienza energetica. RT/2011/11/ENEA. [4]. Latini A, Viola C, Scoccianti M, Campiotti CA. (2014). Efficient fruit and vegetables processing plants handbook. Report. Progetto TESLA (www.teslaproject.org). [5]. Roller WL (1984). Energy perspectives for controlled environment agriculture of the future. Acta Horticulturae 148. [6]. Guide Operative ENEA per ottenere i Titoli di Efficienza Energetica (www.efficienzaenergetica.enea.it).

Energy efficiency in the storage of food

GIOVANNI CORTELLA DIEG – University of Udine – AiCARR partner

During the 19th century the population began a process of grouping in urban centres, moving from the rural environment in which the economy of self-sufficiency played a primary role. This led to a change in the habits of food procurement and the consequent development of a market in which the long storage capacity of the product played a fundamental role. The change is still in progress and has gone from rural markets, which still exist in a limited number, to supermarkets and shopping centres, which also offer goods, services and entertainment. The development of transport means at the same time launched a global food market with a significant increase in the consumption of energy and consequently the environmental impact on delivery of the product. The cold chain is substantially different depending on the food type. For example for fruit the main part of energy consumption takes place during the long-term preservation in cold storage rooms often with controlled atmosphere (Figure 1), while for meat, although the preservation period is much shorter, energy consumption is higher and the prevailing part is during the display and sale of the product (Figure 2).

Figure 1 - Energy usage in the cold chain for fruit

There are few data on energy consumption in the preservation process, and their value is extremely variable as it depends significantly on the construction of the cold storage room, the type of activity and the environmental conditions. The average values observed in Europe are 56 kWh/y/m3 for the storage of refrigerated products and 69 kWh/y/m3 for frozen products.

53 During transport the main energy consumption is not due to refrigeration but the transport means. In this case, it is therefore impossible to provide data without contextualizing it in the product and its origin and destination.

Figure 2. Energy usage in the cold chain for meat

As to product display and retail, it is estimated that in 2002 there were approximately 320,000 shopping centres and 18,000 hypermarkets worldwide. In Europe 28, the area of buildings intended for wholesale and retail is estimated at 1.7 billion m2, of which 112 million m2 for shopping centres, mostly present in the United Kingdom (23%), France (13%) and Italy (11%). The growth prospects of the sector are high (41.3 billion Euro of investments in 2013, with a growth of 20% compared to 2012) and mainly concentrated in the Central and Eastern Europe States, where the area per capita is lower than the European average (225 m2/1000 inhabitants). In all countries there is a high rate of restructuring (4.4% per year) that, together with the construction of new sites, is a great opportunity for the application of energy saving measures. Energy consumption is a sore point when it comes to food retail sale. The consumption of food outlets is in fact up to 5 times higher than that of residential or directional construction. Its value in Europe is between 500 and 1000 kWh/y/m2, divided as follows: 50% for refrigeration of the product; 25% for lighting; 20% for environmental conditioning; 5% for other uses.

If the whole shopping centre is taken into consideration, the energy consumption amounts to a European average of 290 kWh/y/m2 referred to the GLA (Gross Leasable Area).

54 Finally, for domestic refrigeration it is estimated that there are nearly one billion appliances in operation throughout the world, with a very high growth rate especially in developing countries. The environmental impact of such appliances is significant because of their energy consumption and the consequent production of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.

Interventions for energy saving Preservation in cold storage rooms can benefit in terms of energy consumption from a design based on more efficient systems and components. Assuming that the rooms are equipped with suitably dimensioned thermal insulation, improvements can be made on the refrigeration system by massive use of the most recent control systems, which allow to successfully implement sophisticated plant solutions and facilitate the use of refrigerants with low environmental impact. In particular the modulation of compressor and fan speed makes it possible to operate the plant in the best conditions even when there are significant load or outside temperature variations. More efficient de-frosting systems (hot gas type for example), lighting and door opening control, use of protective barriers on the doors, are all measures that can be effectively adopted and with about 1-3 year payback periods. From time to time, there is a return of interest in the possibility of exploiting the thermal capacity of the frozen product stored in the cold storage room by shifting the peak operating time of the installation to lower the temperature of the products during off-peak hours at discounted rates, to then have them return to normal values during peak hours at peak rates. In fact, this solution is only effective in reducing the cost of the energy supply, but not its consumption, and it can have a negative impact on the quality of the stored product. In refrigerated transport systems an immediate advantage can be achieved by improving the thermal insulation of the truck body. Unfortunately, the reduction in the thickness of the side panels to increase the load capacity, and the use of new foaming fluids with poor thermal properties has actually worsened the situation. A solution that has not yet been perfected for this application, but is very promising, is the use of vacuum insulating panels. Refrigeration systems can definitely benefit from using more efficient installation solutions. It should, however, be kept in mind that the great variability in the operating conditions of such systems often affects the effectiveness of solutions that are proven successful in plants operating in stable and almost constant conditions. A large margin of savings can be achieved by reducing the energy consumption of the transport means used. Preservation during display and sale of the product on the other hand offers important margins of intervention. As mentioned above, the main goal to reduce energy consumption in supermarkets and shopping centres is to improve the efficiency of the refrigeration system. However, other measures could significantly improve the energy impact of the shopping centre, which has become one of the leading places for food trade. It is now known that very simple measures in the refrigeration system and its management can also yield considerable energy savings, with payback periods of less than two years. For example it is estimated that the thorough cleaning of the exchange surfaces (removal of frost build-up from the evaporator coils, cleaning of the capacitor heat exchange surface) can save from 2 up to 10% energy. The routine control of the

55 load amount helps to find any leaks that can compromise the performance of the machine up to 10%, as well as generating greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Below are some suggested measures for commercial refrigeration without stopping the installation, with an indication of their payback time:

Condenser fan cleaning 0.3 years High efficiency evaporator fan 0.3 years Environment temperature lowering 0.5 years Variable condensation pressure 0.6 years Replacement of T8 fluorescent lights with T5 0.8 years Use of night covers on refrigerated display counters 1.4 years Installation of doors on open vertical refrigerated display cases 3.8 years Use of LED lights in refrigerated display counters and cases 5.0 years

As can be seen, there are several very simple measures that can be taken, which can give significant benefits. Other restructuring improvements can be adopted, such as the optimisation of the defrosting cycles, the use of geothermal drains for condensation, the optimisation of the air curtains in the open refrigerated cases, the use of unheated antifogging glasses, not to mention innovative systems that can also use fluids with low environmental impact. Not least, especially in terms of importance, is the aspect of educating those involved in the management and maintenance of the installations. Very often supermarket managers refuse innovative engineering solutions for fear that when maintenance or adjustments are required the installation can be operated improperly by someone who is not sufficiently competent. This is obviously a major limitation on the usage of some new technologies even though these are already available and tested. Other types of actions may concern other appliances in the shopping centre, which have to work together more and more to foster the energy recovery. For example, the recovery of condensation heat for the production of hot water is quite frequent, but it is not often used on a wider scale, for example, for radiant floor heating in winter and the supply of hot water or the post-heating air in summer. The same level of lighting in the environment can be achieved with LED lamps, which have a very high efficiency and do not produce IR radiation (and therefore do not heat up if not at their base). An air conditioning system should be considered when restructuring, because this too affects the energy balance from anything up to 20%. Typical measures are primarily aimed at improving building insulation and window and door frames; therefore, a greater control of temperature and humidity, the use of heat pumps, even so much as cogeneration or trigeneration. Last, but not least, is domestic refrigeration. In this context, energy labelling is playing a very important role in guiding users towards low energy consumption appliances. Even incentive campaigns to buy more sustainable appliances have boosted the replacement of refrigerators that, since they are highly reliable machines are getting on with age.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Sources of data are the projects deliverables:

56 ICE-E: Improving Cold storage Equipment in Europe CommONEnergy: Converting EU shopping malls into beacons of energy efficiency Frisbee: Food Refrigeration Innovations for Safety, consumers’ Benefit, Environmental impact and Energy optimisation along the cold chain in Europe

Energy generation from agricultural biomass – An overall picture

ANTONIO N. NEGRI

Energy Services Manager GSE S.p.A., Rome

Introduction Directive of 26 March 2009 (28/2009/EC) on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, implemented by our Legislative Decree n° 28 of 3 March 2011 (Legislative Decree n° 28/2011), includes "biomass" in the list of renewable energy resources. "Biomass" is defined as: "the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues of biological origin from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries including fisheries and aquaculture, the cuttings and prunings from the public and private green spaces, as well as the biodegradable part of industrial and municipal waste." The definition, therefore, includes a very wide range of materials, virgin or remnants of industrial and agricultural processes, solid and liquid, with a wide range of calorific values. Both the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (PAN, 30.6.2010), and the National Energy Strategy ("National Energy Strategy: for a more competitive and sustainable energy," the Ministry of Economic Development, March 2013) assign an important role to Biomass, in a context of the increasing use of renewable sources, particularly but not only to satisfy the thermal needs of the sector.

USE OF BIOMASS ENERGY: GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY The incentive The use of biomass to generate electricity is encouraged, pursuant to the laws that have been implemented over the past fifteen years, using various mechanisms, as shown in Fig. 1. Until decree of 6 July 2012 was published, "bioenergy " installations could enter the mechanism of Green Certificates (CV) or the All-inclusive feed-in Tariff (TO), provided they met the necessary requirements that would qualify them as" Renewable Energy Power Plants - RES". The plants in operation as of 1.1.2013 can access different mechanisms, defined by Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012, which states that:  A base feed-in tariff, whose value is defined for each source, type of plant and capacity class that includes the incentive as well as the economic value of the energy fed into the network.

 for plants with a capacity exceeding 1 MW only the incentive may be requested, whereas those with a capacity of up to 1 MW can, as an alternative to the

58 incentive only, apply for an all-inclusive feed-in tariff, which corresponds to the base tariff - increased by the premiums, if any.  the annual incentive power for the various renewable sources is divided into specific quotas according to the method of access (auctions and registries), which introduces competitive mechanisms among the different plants.  plants under a certain power value (200 kW for bioenergies) can directly access the incentives, without competition  the new mechanisms are an alternative to the simplified purchase/resale arrangements and net metering.

The task of GSE is to qualify the plants for all the incentives mentioned above and to issue the respective incentives, as well as to collect the electricity produced by the plants and placing it on the market.

Fig. 1 – Summary of incentive mechanisms of Renewable Sources

It may be interesting to briefly summarise the incentive tariffs provided by Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012 in Fig. 2, which highlights those related to bio-energy plants.

Fig. 2 - Summary of incentive tariffs provided by M.D. of 6 July 2012

Results The production of electricity from biomass in Italy has been growing since the mid-2000s, as shown in Fig. 3; by 2013 they reached 17,000 GWh, maintaining a share of around 15% of the total RES (equal to 112 TWh) in this compartment. The facilities are located mainly in the northern regions, including Emilia- Romagna, and in Apulia; Lombardy is the region with the largest production share.

Fig.3 – Electrical energy production from Biomass [GSE, Statistic Report 2013]

60 The size of the biomass-powered installations is generally quite limited, mostly below 1 MW - for biogas and bio-liquids - and between 0.2 and 10 MW for solid biomass, as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 - Renewable energy systems: distribution in power classes [GSE, Statistic Report 2013]

Tab.1 summarises the bioenergy plants (solid biomass, biogas, bioliquid) currently in operation, including those that are IAFR certified and those that have been granted incentives according to Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012.

IAFR-qualified plants FER-qualified plants

Power Power Source Number Source Number (MW) (MW) Biogas 1449 1226 Biogas 80 18 Bioliquid 477 1062 Solid Biomass 212 2153 Biomass 49 26 TOTAL 2138 4441 TOTAL 129 44

Table 1 –IAFR and FER qualified plants (Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012), for the various types of biomass [GSE, 2015] updated as of 31 December 2014

The mechanism of subscribing to the register, for the allocation of incentives according to a ranking, has had some success particularly in the bioenergy field with applications exceeding the cumulative energy capacity assigned by the decree (Fig. 5). It is worth remembering, however, that this result is still only on paper: in fact, it now needs to be seen how many of the plants successfully listed will then be implemented

61 within the time prescribed by law. On the other hand, the auctions for bioenergy were virtually deserted, having allocated about 1/5 of the 290 MW available.

Fig. 5 – Results of the allocation of cumulative registered capacity

(Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012) [GSE, 2015]

Plants of the agriculture sector Given the context of this report, it is interesting to try to establish the number of plants related to farms. Table 2a and 2b give a rough estimate of this, thanks to a search through the GSE database in relation to IAFR and/or FER qualified bioenergy plants in operation, selecting only the farms that have “Farm” included in the registered company name.

Table 2 a – IAFR Qualified bioenergy plants in the agricultural sector [estimate by GSE]

Table 2 b –FER Qualified bioenergy plants in the agricultural sector pursuant to Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012 [estimate by GSE]

As can be seen, more than half of biogas installations are in the agricultural sector, whereas only a very small percentage of solid biomass installations is managed by farms and mainly for district heating, with management by municipalities, municipal companies or private bodies. A similar consideration can be made in relation to bioliquids where a wide use of palm oil from Indonesia and Malaysia prevails (Fig. 6), with only a marginal involvement of Italian farmholdings.

Figure 6 – Origin of bioliquids used for incentivised electrical power production in 2013 [GSE, Statistic Report 2013]

63 Production of heating from Biomass

Compared to the electricity sector, the metering and accounting of energy consumption from renewable sources in the heating sector is more complex and articulated especially when it comes to solid biomass. Table 3 summarises the more than significant contribution of bioenergy in the production of thermal energy: out of a total (direct consumption only) of just under 10 Mtep, almost 7 came from this source.

*The available data does not allow to distinguish between the biodegradable fraction of waste and the solid biomass

Table 3 – Thermal sector: energy from renewable sources in 2013 [GSE, 2015]

As can be seen, bioenergies have a pivotal role in the thermal sector, mostly thanks to the extent of thermal energy consumed directly by households and businesses through fireplaces, stoves and boilers, as confirmed by the results of the Survey on household energy consumption for 2013, published last December by Istat. Nowadays, there is closeness between the tools that support energy efficiency and thermal FER. The main mechanisms that support thermal FER are:  50% Tax deduction  White certificates  Heating and cooling. As to heating and cooling, Fig. 7 shows that in the years 2013-14 as much as 25% of the incentivised work involved the installation of biomass boilers.

64 Food chain certification: from content to container

MARCO MARI

Senior Business Developer and Special Project Manager – Bureau Veritas Italia S.p.A

Apparently there is a point when progress to remain a real advance must change slightly the direction of its line [Joseph Conrad- taken from: Some reflections on the loss of the Titanic]

The current environment continues to highlight more and more the unequal conditions among different countries and populations, which, considering several phenomena such as globalisation and the eco-mafia, contribute to increasing inequalities in society and require a rethinking of the whole economic, social, environmental and cultural system. On the one hand, proper management of a company is still based on economic and legal responsibilities, namely the search for benefits from increasing levels of effectiveness and efficiency. On the other, in this context, the responsibilities of Organizations are continuously extending to previously unknown fields, such as Sustainability, and nowadays, in the presence of ever-increasing threats, Resilience, defined as the ability of an organisation to cope with unexpected events, whether they are of a natural origin or induced, such as the current economic crisis. Therefore, new areas of attention, which to be honest, we do not believe are caused by the “philanthropy” of individual market participants, but more realistically are to be considered a result of an assessment of expediency and survival that we like to see as a “healthy selfishness “. This awareness has matured probably due to some simple, objective evidence: the rising cost of energy and raw materials; the recent phenomena caused by climate change; the steady increase in food demand. Due to the escalation of these players, more and more consumers have become conscious of the selection criteria, together with the value for money of the goods or service and the social and environmental costs arising from its production process throughout the supply chain, that is to say: its life cycle. Complicit to this is also the amount of easily accessible information, which has allowed consumers to be more demanding and to be able to assess whether the product is suited to their tastes, also in terms of social, and/or environmental values.

Moreover, the safety, or rather the perceived level of safety felt by consumers, is undermined by information that is not always very reassuring, considering that in 2014 Italy witnessed an increase in waste cycle crimes (+14.3%) with an increase in reports to the authorities (+15.9%), arrests (+3.4%) and impounds (+3.9%); and there is a strong

65 growth in the crime rate in the food sector that goes from 4,173 offences in 2012 to 9,540 in 2014 with double the amount of arrests6. It is of no coincidence that recently the Senate gave the final go-ahead to the provision against “ecocrimes”. Last, but not least, Europe has given a strong drive on issues relating to traceability, transparency, and energy and environmental innovation. The previously highlighted needs and urgency to provide a greater guarantee for the concerned parties have given way and support both the spreading of various management techniques (downsizing, business process reengineering, lean thinking, lean production, etc.) and the spreading of risk management models based on analysis concepts, process management, traceability and production chains, focusing on the more general concept of relations among the various entities (whether it is the business process and/or a series of parties involved in a production chain and the associated impacts and interactions with the reference environment) that manage assets, and the customer’s rights, that is the product user, to be able to have complete and correct information.

A wide range of certifications … for Sustainability in the broad sense

Therefore, not only the Suppliers but also Manufacturers of raw materials and Service Providers are now involved in this challenge, and in general, the Bureau Veritas Group in their national and international work, enjoy a privileged point of view, operating in all aspects of Quality, Health and Safety, Agribusiness, Supply Chain Management, Environment and Social Responsibility, Climate Change, Water management, Waste management and much more.

6 Data source: Rapporto Ecomafia 2014 (http://www.legambiente.it/contenuti/dossier/rapporto- ecomafia-2014)

66 But what should one focus on? On a single organisation producing a product or on a production sector? On a single product, meant as content, or even the container, understood as a company/production site?

7 The answer is certainly not simple and the particularly broad reference framework suggests that all issues should be faced with a holistic approach, taking into account the various needs and working towards individual instruments in order to provide what might be called correct asset management.

The content: that is, the correct handling of products, technologies and industry If we mean the product and production technologies as the content, be it a food product, or a production chain, there are specific national and/or international rules that allow the risks to be managed properly and to guarantee the market through suitable third party certifications. The market and supply chains have long since adopted these sound practices. The advantages deriving from such practices are many, such as: assuring that the food safety and quality objectives are maintained; tracing the origin of the materials used in the various production processes and the destination of the finished product, as well as all the parameters and controls carried out along the production processes; verifying information; improving and controlling the internal processes; minimising risk; guaranteeing compliance with the regulations in force; increasing transparency and confidence in the Consumer and shareholders.

A summary of the main rules for the issues mentioned, can be seen in Table 1 for the agro-food chain and in Table 2 for the products.

Certifiable standard Brief description Applicable to the entire Agro-Food supply chain aimed at controlling hazards related to food safety ISO 22000 – Management Systems for food safety of products placed on the market, from the raw material to the semi-finished and end product Aimed at controlling quality and sustainability through the Good Practices of Agricultural GLOBALG.A.P. (Good Agricultural Practices) Processing.

It is applicable to the entire supply chain or sections thereof, in the most different of sectors, from ISO 22005 –Traceability System in the feed and animal feed to meat and food. The aim of the food chain standard is to support companies in documenting the history of the product, so that it can be traced back to the location and origin at any time.

Table 1 – Certifiable standards for agro-food chains

67 It is applicable to individual players in the sector and is obtained as a result of a verification process to check the compliance Halal Certification. with technical and religious requirements according to Islamic law in the production of such products (food, cosmetics, clothing, etc.) and service delivery (financial, tourism, etc.) The use of RSPO-certified palm oil demonstrates the commitment of the RSPO - Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Organisations to maintain a sufficient supply without damaging the living conditions of local communities and the biodiversity of the involved ecosystems The UTZ program is mainly addressed to cocoa, coffee and tea producers as well as the chain of custody of the companies that use such products in the supply chain. The UTZ UTZ Program certification program contributes to the development of sustainable agriculture throughout the supply chain and helps to improve farming conditions, respecting the consumers and the environment. Certification scheme specific to the food BRC IOP packaging safety Certification scheme specific tor the food FSSC 22000 PACK SECTOR packaging safety Scheme to certify the life cycle of the products developed by the Swedish Environmental Management Council. It is an innovative tool that is fully part of EU environmental policies, able to evaluate all the characteristics, performances and environmental impacts of products and services published in the Environmental Product Declaration and to communicate EPD® (Environmental Product Declaration) them in an objective, comparable and credible way to the outside. The Environmental Product Declaration applies to all products or services regardless of their location or use in the production chain and is developed using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a methodology for identifying, mapping and analysing all the environmental impacts of the product or service. Table 2 – Product certifiable standards

68 Of course, these considerations are not only applied to the agro-food chain. Sustainability and Resilience are daily issues for many industrial sectors, as well as Transparency and Certification. It is sufficient to think of the wood-paper chain. Even in this sector the European Union has stepped in with the Timber Regulation EUTR n° 995/2010 that entered into force on 3 March 2013 in all Member States. The purpose of this regulation is to oppose the sale of timber and any derivatives of illegal origin. Moreover, they have been established for years in the international standards sector for the voluntary certification of Sustainable Forest Management (FSC FM or GFS), Traceability of Products (FSC® COC) Management and Chain of Custody (CoC PEFC - Chain of Custody) . Returning to the agro-food industry, it should be noted that the industry does not only produce raw materials and products. In terms of sustainability, even waste can become a raw-secondary material, a real value, setting the foundations for a correct reuse of waste and scrap from various industries, as well as a more efficient and effective exploitation of resources. In this context, a specific issue needs to be addressed for biofuels and biomass. In fact, if these products are managed in controlled supply chains, they provide a number of benefits and advantages in replacing fossil fuels, an issue that has been considered important for a long time in the fight against climate change. Convinced of this, the European Union has established that by 2020 member states incorporate 10% of biofuels in the fuel distributed on the market. Many governments, in Europe and throughout the world, have set high targets for biofuel use in the coming years and have introduced tax incentives to encourage its spreading. Therefore, there is a real market opportunity for companies that decide to produce or distribute biofuel and several companies in the primary sector and food industry in general have already entered the biomass production business, the raw material used for the production of biofuel. Of course, as with other sectors, the incentive policies for companies come with a series of requirements to be met mainly in compliance with sustainability issues. The interest of the legislator is to ensure that companies in the biofuels industry are able to manage the negative effects of their activities on crops, deforestation and the greenhouse effect. In Europe, Member States are transposing EU Directive 2009/28/EC that lays out specific requirements for biofuel producers in order to ensure its sustainability. In Italy, national directives have recently been issued for transposition. Compliance with the legislations gives biofuel producers immediate competitive advantages. In July 2011 the European Commission recognised various schemes for sustainable biofuels certification applicable in all Member States, of which an overview is outlined in Table 3

69 Certifiable standard Brief description ISCC EU - DE - 36 and PLUS (International Sustainability Applicable to all fuel types and Carbon Certification) Applicable to all crops and specific to REDCert Germany 2BSvs (Biomass Biofuels voluntary scheme): Applicable to all fuel types and specific to France Bonsucro EU Applicable to all sugarcane-based biofuels and specific to Brazil RTRS EU RED (Round Table on Applicable to all soy-based biofuels and Responsible Soy specific to Brazil and Argentina EU RED) RSB EU RED (Round Table of Sustainable Applicable to all fuel types Biofuels EU RED) Active since January 23 2012, the purpose of which is to ensure the reliability of information that contribute to demonstrating Italian National Scheme compliance with the sustainability criteria for biofuels and the environmental and social information provided by economic operators belonging to the reference sector Table 3 - Certifiable standards for the biofuel and biomass supply chain

The container: namely real estate assets, their management and requalification On the other hand, if we extend the analysis of the assets, in terms of sustainability we realise that considering only products, technologies and supply chains, or what we considered as content, can be highly reductive. A comprehensive approach to the supply chain cannot but consider the production buildings as a container; that is a further asset. In fact, as pointed out by several studies and by various European Directives8, the environmental impact of the buildings and their management is objectively relevant, given that several studies show 40% of CO2 emissions worldwide or 50% by weight of waste generated in Europe, are to be attributed to the construction industry. In a Sustainability Policy, the company will have to consider the impacts of its products as well as its properties and account for them. In this context, the theme of sustainable construction, or Green Building, came out long ago from the border of the Real Estate sector. It is no longer the exclusive prerogative of Designers and Architects, but has become a topic of interest for entrepreneurs of every sector that think "green" for their production facilities.

8 In particular see for example Directive 27/12/UE.

70 It is no coincidence that the first application of a new protocol on the sustainable requalification of historic buildings9 is the renovation of an ancient farmhouse located in Guarene, in the Langhe and Roero hills10. Likewise, the only building of EXPO 2015 certified according to the LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) sustainability protocol is again a farmhouse, Cascina Triulza. Even in the management of real estate assets, the internationally established trend is to go beyond simple energy efficiency, using a holistic approach that not only helps to reduce energy consumption, but also reduces the environmental impact of the construction sites, improves indoor air quality, reduces water consumption or reduces the impact of the buildings in the local context. In recent years, a wide range of studies and authoritative reports11 have outlined 'Business case' elements for sustainable buildings. Researches clearly show that there are a large number of benefits for the various parties involved throughout the supply chain for the entire life cycle of the real estate asset. Among these and in addition to the mentioned advantages, it is important to emphasise the significant improvement in the productivity of the main asset of a company, the workers, acting also on health and well- being, with consequent benefits for the business. To this regard, the studies have measured productivity including the results of the work produced, as well as health indicators (e.g. absenteeism) and well-being indicators (including stress levels and mood). Within the Green Building industry, there are numerous certification standards and internationally-recognised labels. These are voluntary systems for the assessment and certification of building eco- sustainability; methodologies for measuring the building’s environmental energy performances according to predefined parameters.

Some of the main International Green Building labels are reported in Table 4.

Certifiable standard Brief description The BREEAM system is actively supported by the British Government that made it mandatory for public buildings and schools. BREEAM Its requirements are: Management, Energy use, Health & well-being, Air & Water Pollution, Transport, Ecology, Materials, Water.

9 Sources: GBC Italia, Protocol for the Requalification of Historical Buildings called GBC Historic Building (http://www.gbcitalia.org/risorse/169?locale=it). 10 Sources: GBC Italia, case study of Guarene (http://www.gbcitalia.org/news/530?locale=it). 11 Sources: The business case for green building – worldgbc, 2013; Sustainability Metrics – UNEP, 2014; Guidelines for the sustainable real estate investment, Riccardo Catella Foundation, 2014; Building design & construction – UNEP 2012.

71 HQE is the French label. Launched in 2005, its criteria are: Building harmony with environment, Construction materials, Environmental management of building HQE phase, Energy performance, Water management, Waste management, Maintenance management, Indoor comfort, Hygiene conditions, Air & water quality. GREEN RATING is an initiative of the Real Estate world, launched on a European level in 2001. It has the characteristic of being applicable to existing buildings. The methodology was developed by Bureau GREEN RATING Veritas along with AEW Europe, AXA Real Estate, ING Real Estate, GE Real Estate. The GREEN RATING requirements are: Energy, Transport, Carbon Emissions, Water efficiency, Well-being, Waste. Among all the initiatives, the most widespread as far as verified area is the LEED® system (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), launched in 1998 in the USA by US GBC (Green Building Council). LEED® is a set of standards applicable to each type of building and the entire life cycle. It has been developing and applying standards LEED® for Multiple Building/Campus, Schools, Healthcare, Retail, Laboratories, Commercial Interiors, Core & Shell, Homes, Neighbourhood. The LEED criteria are: Sustainable sites, Water efficiency, Energy, Material & resources, Indoor environmental quality, Innovation & Design process. Table 4 - Green Building Labels

As regards the Italian level, worthy of mention are: the LEED® Italia NC protocol, also applicable to schools, and resulting from the transposition of the US rating in the context of Italian and European reference standards, coordinated by GBC Italia, as well as the GBC Home ™ protocol for residential construction, the GBC Quartieri™ protocol, the recent and interesting GBC Historic Building ™ protocol, which is applicable to the requalification of historic buildings and the recent LEED® EBOM relating to the management of existing buildings; CASA CLIMA, launched in 2000, has the main feature of considering purely the energy aspects, and ITACA, launched in 2001 by APAT. In particular, in addition to the verifications for certification, a further customer service should be pointed out, which is internationally recognised under the term of Commissioning. In a nutshell, it can be said that the commissioning of services is

72 intended to ensure that the systems (whether they are energy and/or technological systems) of a work (a boat, a production line, a building or other technological installation) are installed, calibrated and function in accordance with the customer’s requirements, project specifications and contract documents. Commissioning has always been a common practice for the control systems in industrial environments. In the construction sector, the LEED® system recognises the advantages and potential of Commissioning and includes this activity among the prerequisites required. There are many advantages of Commissioning, among which it is worth emphasising, for example, the reduction in energy consumptions, lower operating costs, fewer disputes with the contactor and verification that plant performance meets the project requirements and customer specifications.

CONCLUSIONS In both sectors, whether referred to what has been identified under the category of content or the container, the concept of third-party verification is objectively recognised internationally as a central element to ensure transparency, energy efficiency and sustainability for the benefit of all parties involved. The large international scenario that combines the complex relationship between energy and food is continuously evolving. Nevertheless, we believe that the tools presented briefly in this paper, although they are not exhaustive, can provide an effective overall picture, a stimulus and a positive challenge towards achieving transparency, sustainability and resilience of the Organizations and can play an increasingly greater role at the centre of local, regional and international politics.

73 Agriculture plays a fundamental role in the transformation of the energy required for agriculture and the energy produced by agriculture. It is essential to emphasize a new role of production that considers the effects and consequences on the economic, financial, social and environmental condition of those who provide the resources (i.e. energy communities). This role is especially evident in the agricultural sector (food communities). Parallelism between agriculture and energy can be delineated by the concept of sovereignty, which implies the need for energy policies that are agricultural production-conscious. There is always talk of the waste of food, but what about the energy to create that food? Is a peasant world possible like the one fifty years ago in Italy? A world without waste, characterized by a completely decarbonised production? AiCARR wants to provide answers to these questions and emphasise the important role of a future civil society with a new social model that will start with food and energy.

The publication is available on AiCARR website: www.aicarr.org/Default_en.aspx

1. ENERGY and FOOD Communities: a sustainable program 2. Small scale production enhancement 3. Energy problems in food industry, focusing on grocery stores and refrigerated ware-house: an international overview 4. Food production systems 5. Food vs energy, conflict or integration 6. Energy efficiency for an innovative and sustainable agriculture system 7. Energy efficiency for food conservation industry 8. Energy generation from agricultural biomass - an overall picture 9. Food chain certification: from content to container

Associazione Italiana Condizionamento dell’Aria, Riscaldamento, Refrigerazione

Via Melchiorre Gioia, 168 - 20125 Milano phone +39 02 67479270 www.aicarr.org

EXPO MILANO 2015