Carbon Footprints and Food Systems
2.
3.
65
countries, one set of data may not be suitable to represent the whole country, so there is a need to develop data for several regions in a country. Such an exercise would be resource-intensive, but as many countries share similar biophysical characteristics, there could be merit in simply developing databases for particular agri-ecological zones. This would offer considerable advantages of efficiency and also enable the generation of more geographically-specific data. Make relevant data more accessible. All information needed for carbon footprinting of agricultural products should be located in one easily accessible and user-friendly database. Although there are several websites that seek to provide some of the relevant data, none of the current ones are complete, and their presence is not well signposted to naive users. Provide training and support in record-keeping. If small-scale producers, producer cooperatives, and traders do not maintain good and accurate records of inputs and yields, then there may be a need to make more assumptions when calculating footprints than if they had good and accurate records. It may be necessary to train such farmers in record-keeping, in order to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in comparison with large-scale producers/traders, who may have be er recordkeeping and access to expertise to help with footprinting.
Calculation and Communication
1.
2.
3.
4.
All calculations of carbon footprints should be published on a public database. It should not be permissible for retailers or others to declare carbon footprints on consumer-facing labels or websites unless the details of the calculation are published in a public place. These sites should also clearly state all the assumptions made when calculating the carbon footprint. Such publication would enable governments, NGOs, journalists, the public, and producers to scrutinize the data and the methods, and judge the accuracy of the results. Declare the intensity of data collection. When publishing information on carbon footprints, it should be stated whether or not the consultants actually visited the countries and farms analyzed. This is important, as carbon footprints based on primary data are more likely to be accurate than those based on secondary data. Recognize the subjectivity and uncertainty in carbon footprints. Footprinting methodologies need to reduce the level of subjectivity inherent within them. Relatively li le work is reported in the literature on the subjective nature of LCAs and carbon footprints, and the differences that may arise if different analysts consider the same product or process. This issue is important where these analyses may impact consumer-facing carbon labels, influence the purchasing decisions of retailers, or become included in policy making (cf. EU Biofuels Directive), which might impact access to markets, subsidies, tax breaks, and so on. There is also a need for footprinting analysts to recognize and communicate the level of subjectivity that is inherent in calculating any carbon footprint. Carbon footprints are intended to be used as tools to inform business, governments, and consumers, so that they can take relevant action to reduce climate change. Unfortunately there is currently a tendency to utilize carbon footprints simply as a means to gain commercial advantage and/or market access. This commerciality is one reason why the details of carbon footprinting methods are not normally communicated to the public. Initiatives for internationally agreed and standardized carbon footprinting methods should be supported. Footprints should consider including capital inputs. Not all carbon footprinting methods require that emissions related to the manufacture of capital items be included in the calculations. The exclusion of capital items can comparatively