66
World Bank Study
5.
6.
7.
8.
disadvantage developing country producers if this “carbon efficiency” is not taken into account. For example, developing countries typically utilize human labor instead of machines, and the infrastructure in developing countries is o en less established than in developed countries. Provide more disaggregated consumer information. Some carbon footprints require that emissions from the use phase of the product be included in the overall calculation. For food items, the main emissions relating to use are from cooking and refrigeration. In products such as coffee, the use phase is so large (30% of the carbon footprint) that it may mask producer carbon efficiencies (PCF Pilot Project Germany, 2009). Perhaps the footprint could be broken down to demonstrate the proportion of the overall emissions derived from the different phases of the life cycle (e.g., on the farm, land use change, processing, transport, and use). This may help consumers realize that even though the footprint of a particular product is relatively high, it was not the farmers in developing countries who were responsible for the majority of emissions. Encourage innovation in the food chain. Few footprinting methods actually provide a direct incentive to the individual businesspeople in the supply chain to reduce their component of the overall carbon footprint. If footprints are presented at an aggregate level, such as when multinational companies report the footprints for their final products from a region as if it were one uniform good (e.g., sugar from Zambia, beans from Kenya, grapes from Chile), then there is li le incentive for the individual businesses that contribute to the production of these products to reduce their own emissions. If individual businesses could be provided with direct incentives for reducing their emissions, then innovation in the food chain would be encouraged. Recognize that the lack of control that innovation has over carbon footprints discourages innovation. The carbon footprints of some products of LDCs are dominated by the GHG emissions from one of two factors: land use change and/ or transport by air. There is nothing that farmers and processing businesses in LDCs can do about either of these emissions. So to some extent, the impact of any innovation they make in their businesses will be inconsequential when compared to the emissions from land use change and air freight. It is important to recognize this issue and to find ways to encourage and reward even small innovations on farm that serve to reduce emissions. Develop low-cost approaches to calculation and certification. The costs associated with the calculation and verification or certification of a carbon footprint might be prohibitive for smaller producers from less-developed countries, as is already the case for some schemes (e.g., GlobalGAP). This might lead to a situation where producers will not be able to sell to suppliers and wholesalers who demand that a carbon footprint be calculated. Small producers may be out-competed by large producers and international businesses that will find it easier to finance the cost of carbon footprinting and certification. Low-cost solutions need to be developed to help prevent this situation.
In-Country and General Development
1.
2.
Enhance yields. If yields of crops could be increased without increased use of inputs, and yield variability could be decreased, then the overall carbon footprint of that crop would be reduced. Encourage processing in developing countries. If the shelf-life of a product can be extended through processing, then it may be possible to transport that product to the final market by ship instead of by air, thereby reducing emissions. Thus the processing of goods in developing countries could be encouraged, as it