Katharina Plassmann Institute for Agricultural Climate Research Product carbon footprinting: implementation challenges? Brussels, 7 October 2011.

Katharina Plassmann

Institute for Agricultural Climate Research

Product carbon footprinting: implementation challenges?

Brussels, 7 October 2011

INTRODUCTION

Carbon footprinting and labelling A product carbon footprint is the sum of all greenhouse gases (GHG)

released during the life cycle of a good or service, expressed as CO2 equivalents per unit of product.

Figure: from draft WRI Product accounting and reporting standard

Aims:

1) reduce GHG emissions and prioritise reduction opportunities

2) provide a baseline

3) identify cost saving opportunities

4) incorporate GHG emissions into decision making

5) demonstrate corporate/environmental responsibility

6) meet consumer demands for information on greenhouse gas emissions => changed consumption behaviour

Carbon footprinting and labelling

Product Carbon Footprinting: Public and private initiatives International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)

World Resources Institute and World Business Council forSustainable Development

Grenelle Laws, Agency for the Environment andEnergy Management (ADEME) (France)

PAS 2050 and Carbon Reduction Label (UK)

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan)

Carbon Reduction Label (Thailand)

Stop Climate Change (Germany)

KRAV and Svenskt Sigill (Sweden)

Casino (France)

Leclerc (France)

Migros (Switzerland)

Industry Association initiatives, e.g. International dairy industry

PCFs OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS: IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

Methodological challenges

Scientific understanding of emissions from agricultural production systems around the world incomplete, esp. developing countries.

Lack of knowledge on emissions from developing countries means these systems might not be represented adequately

Agroforestry systems store carbon but cannot claim benefits under current methodologies

Soil carbon changes: usually not included

Practical challenges

numerous product carbon footprinting methodologies

companies might have to comply with multiple labelling initiatives for different markets

awareness and capacity representativeness of samples cost of calculation and verification can

be high

Particular challenges for smallholder farmers/SMEs

costs of data collection (time, training, development of recording systems, …)

low economies of scale limited access to information on standards

and markets, training, extension services, technologies and certification bodies

potentially lower yields and older technology

Challenging results

schemes vary greatly in approach and methodology applied, e.g. system boundaries

data issues: uncertainties surrounding emission factorslack of emission factors, esp. for developing countries data quality

Þ low comparability of studies (external communication)

supplier selection? impact on export opportunities?

Carbon footprint of fresh pineapples:

0.2 kg CO2e/kg at the farm gate

11 kg CO2e/kg when air freighted to Europe

Processed into jam and shipped to Europe: 1.2 kg CO2e/kg

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Calculating Product Carbon Footprints can......

encourage a better use of resources increase competitiveness and participation in

world trade help preserve the environment and promote

sustainable development encourage the uptake of best practice be implemented by private and public actors

and also encourage consumers to reduce their personal emissions

encourage the use of greener technology

Further development of methods, application & policy making

support for SMEs: capacity building, training, extension services, finance for transition to new technologies/practices

awareness raising amongst businesses, stakeholders and consumers

active participation in international standardisation processes

develop easily accessible and public regional databases develop low cost approaches to calculation/certification analyse and showcase economic benefits research strategies that maximise synergies between

adaptation to a changing climate, greenhouse gas emissions reductions and wider sustainability issues (e.g. biodiversity)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND THANKS TO:

The World Bank (Paul Brenton and Michael Friis Jensen)Gareth Edwards-Jones (Bangor University, UK)Andrew Norton (Renuables, Llanllechid, UK)

THANK YOU!

Contact: [email protected]@web.de