Product Carbon Footprinting schemes and standards Katharina Plassmann

Product Carbon Footprinting schemes and standards Katharina Plassmann Contact: katharina. plassmann@vti. bund. de

Carbon footprinting & labelling § a carbon footprint is the sum of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) released during the life cycle of a good or service § GHGs included: CO 2, N 2 O, CH 4, other GHGs (CFCs, halons, methyl bromide, sulphur hexafluoride, mono/di/trichloromethane…) § expressed as CO 2 equivalents per unit of product § based on life cycle thinking, but includes only the climate change impact

Aims of product carbon footprinting 1) reduce GHG emissions and prioritise GHG reduction opportunities 2) provide a benchmark 3) identify cost saving opportunities 4) incorporate GHG emissions into decision making, e. g. sourcing, product design, choice of raw materials 5) compare between supply chains and products 6) demonstrate corporate/environmental responsibility 7) meet consumer demands for information on GHG emissions, either via product labels or other means (e. g. websites) 8) opportunity for increased consumer information and understanding

Public and private initiatives § PAS 2050 and Carbon Reduction Label (UK) § International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) § World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development § Grenelle II Law, Agency for the Environment and Energy Management (ADEME) (France) § 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

Different approaches and communication

Numerical communication § e. g. PAS 2050 and Carbon Reduction Label § communicates results as precise figures of CO 2 equivalents § commitment to reduce GHG emissions within 2 years § every product can apply for the Carbon Reduction Label => seen as encouragement for all businesses to reduce GHG emissions § consumer education and choice

‘Climate champion’ approach § e. g. supermarket chain Migros § only the best products within in a product category are labelled § no communication of precise figures § consumers are guided to the most climate friendly products, but they do not know which products were analysed

Climate certification initiative § e. g. Krav and Swedish Seal (Svenskt Sigill) in cooperation with major food companies § certification scheme that has to be used in addition to other sustainability certification schemes § guarantees to the consumer that improvements have been made across the entire supply chain § no actual calculations but rules on reducing emission hotspots § no communication of precise figures

Methodological and practical issues § schemes vary greatly in approach and methodology applied, e. g. system boundaries § data issues: uncertainties surrounding emission factors lack of emission factors, esp. for developing countries use of different databases for secondary data quality and representativeness § the impact of these differences is difficult to judge because the details of the calculations are rarely reported § cost of calculation and verification can be high Þ low comparability of studies (between products & countries of origin) Þ companies might have to comply with multiple labelling initiatives for different markets Þ costumers might be confused by the multitude of labels

Carbon footprinting of tropical products

Product carbon footprinting and developing countries § Scientific understanding of emissions from agricultural production systems around the world incomplete, esp. developing countries. § Schemes are mainly designed and applied in industrialised countries. § Lack of knowledge on emissions from developing countries means these systems might not be represented adequately. § There are fears of trade restrictions resulting from carbon labelling and carbon taxes.

Objectives of research § to assess the difficulties that less developed countries may have in meeting the demands posed by different schemes § to provide recommendations for development-friendly carbon labelling

Greenhouse gas emissions (%) from sugar cane production at the farm gate in Zambia (A, B, C) and Mauritius (D) (following PAS 2050 methodology) 100% 90% 80% 0 ther inputs 70% N 2 O from N fertiliser 60% land use change emissions 50% K 2 O 40% P 2 O 5 N 30% grid electricity 20% diesel 10% 0% Farm A Farm B 207 91 Farm C 64 Farm D 26 Total kg CO 2 e/t sugar cane

Land use change § can dominate carbon footprints § potential difficulties in choosing the correct preconversion vegetation type § large ranges of major input variables § more likely to be an issue for developing countries than industrialised countries § worst case scenario approach can greatly over-estimate land use change emissions but encourages better documentation of origins

Currently developing countries often are. . . § § § § § a long way from markets highly dependent on export of food exporting commodities and unprocessed foods deficient in relevant data and information suffering from need to incorporate land use change in calculations subject to numerous carbon footprinting methodologies unvisited by carbon footprinting consultants suffering from low and variable yields providing food at the farm gate with lower carbon footprints than developed countries

. . . so what should we do? § increase yields and reduce variability § encourage processing in developing countries § think hard about how to include land use change in food labels § consider how to include agroforestry and tree crops in carbon footprints § develop good data and easily accessible databases for tropical regions / countries § explicitly recognise uncertainty and subjectivity § have carbon labels declare if the consultants visited the country of interest § have retailers and industry declare their calculations § develop low cost approaches to calculation and certification § consider combining carbon footprints with other environmental and/or sustainability indicators

Thanks to our funders: The World Bank (Michael Jensen & Paul Brenton) UK Research Council (Rural Economy and Land Use Programme) Horticultural Development Council Welsh Assembly Government International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Contact: katharina. plassmann@vti. bund. de

Contribution of key variables to the carbon footprint of sugar cane (kg CO 2 e/t sugar cane) delivered to refinery Baseline (0%) is calculated according to PAS 2050. Former land-use: tropical dry forest. remove N 2 O from fertiliser rounding of final reported figure Farm D not using country-specific electricity EF Farm C Farm B add capital inputs Farm A add loss of soil carbon 1896 add worst case scenario land use change emissions remove land use change emissions -150 50 % change from baseline 250

Fresh pineapples: Carbon footprint at the farm gate and European import gate Beef: 12 -23 kg CO 2 e/kg Cheese: 7 -13 kg CO 2 e/kg (figures taken from various sources)

Fresh pineapples have a carbon footprint of 11 kg CO 2 e/kg when air freighted to Europe. When they are processed into jam and shipped to Europe the carbon footprint is 1. 2 kg CO 2 e/kg.

Emissions from food miles Goods that can be shipped have a low vulnerability (e. g. sugar, coffee, tea)

Greenhouse gas emissions for beans from Kenya, Uganda and the UK: Cropping stage only

Greenhouse gas emissions for beans from Kenya, Uganda and the UK: Total supply chain

‘Driving six and a half miles to buy your shopping emits more carbon than flying a pack of Kenyan green beans to the UK. ’ (Department for International Development, UK Govt)

Greenhouse gas emissions for lettuce from Spain and the UK 4 2 0 Jan-Apr May-Jul Jul-Oct Nov-Dec

Life Cycle Assessment and carbon footprinting INPUTS OUTPUTS Machinery Pesticides Fertiliser Electricity Fuel Farm Food Wastes Pollution Machinery Fuel Transport Pollution Machinery Electricity Storage & processing Pollution Wastes Retail Wastes Pollution Consumption Wastes Pollution Disposal Wastes Pollution Electricity Packaging Electricity Fuel

Variation between different datasets in GHG emissions from the use of a 16 t truck (kg CO 2 e for 1 tonne-km) Data taken from four different LCA databases (BUWAL, Ecoinvent, ETH and Franklin) 0, 40 kg CO 2 e/tonne-km 0, 35 0, 30 0, 25 0, 20 0, 15 0, 10 0, 05 0, 00 BUWAL Ecoinvent ETH Franklin

Land use change and developing countries

Default values and their ranges for major input variables used during the calculation of emissions resulting from land use change from tropical forest to cropland according to IPCC (2006) tropical moist deciduous forest tropical dry forest Above-ground biomass Litter C stocks Soil organic C stocks 260 (160 -430) 120 (120 -130) tonnes d. m. ha-1 2. 1 (1. 0 -3. 0) tonnes C ha-1 65 38 tonnes C ha-1

Structure Introduction to product carbon footprinting Scope and communication Carbon footprinting and developing countries Impacts of varying carbon footprinting methods on final results Land use change and developing countries Conclusions

Aims of product carbon footprinting For consumers: 1) enable comparison between products and guide purchasing behaviour towards low carbon products 2) opportunity for increased consumer information and understanding

Conclusions

Sugar cane: Flow diagram planting year on farm processes