Executive Summary
xi
food items is also one of the most difficult to quantify. This misfortune is worsened by the potential inequity of accounting only for recent land use change in carbon footprint, which places a far greater burden on tropical developing countries than on developed countries that were largely deforested decades or centuries ago. The impacts of LUC on a product’s carbon footprint are maximized if the worst-case situation is assumed. For all of the case study examples considered, the inclusion of the worst-case LUC led to a massive increase in the footprint. This reflects the differences between the emissions from LUC in the case study countries. In Zambia LUC emissions calculated according to PAS were much lower than for the worst-case scenario (Malaysia); and in Mauritius, where no LUC emissions occurred, the inclusion of data from the worstcase situation resulted in a massive increase in the carbon footprint. The inclusion of certain other variables in the footprint also produced some significant changes in the overall result—such as loss of soil carbon due to soil management or a change in the electricity emission factor—but none was as great as those factors relating to LUC. However, where carbon footprints are calculated with methods that do not require the inclusion of LUC emissions, the relative importance of these other variables will increase.
Recommendations for Development-Friendly Carbon Footprinting Recommendations to improve the utility of determining the carbon footprints of food products derived from developing countries are grouped in four categories. Land Use Change
1. 2. 3. 4.
Work to find an equitable solution to the inclusion of emissions from land use change in carbon footprints. Develop be er databases of land use and emission factors for developing countries. Develop data sets that report the worst-case situation for regions rather than globally. Consider including the benefits of the increased carbon sequestration that occurs above and below the ground in tree and bush crops.
Information and Data
1. 2. 3.
Develop emissions databases for a range of factors at the level of agri-ecological zones, rather than countries or regions. Make relevant data more accessible to analysts in less developed countries. Provide training and support to farmers and business people in record keeping, as the collection of be er data in-country will reduce the need to utilize generic data sets.
Calculation and Communication
1.
2.
3. 4.
Actors responsible for commissioning carbon footprints should be obliged to publish their calculations and assumptions in a publicly available database before they use or communicate the results in any way. When discussing carbon footprints, users should declare the intensity of the data collection that accompanied their calculation. This should include a statement as to whether or not any primary data were collected in the country of concern. The subjectivity and uncertainty inherent in calculating carbon footprints should be widely recognized. Developers of footprint methodologies should consider including GHG emissions from capital inputs.