Supply chain emissions assessment · 2011. 4. 7. · Supply chain emissions assessment Dr Graham...
Transcript of Supply chain emissions assessment · 2011. 4. 7. · Supply chain emissions assessment Dr Graham...
Supply chain emissions assessment
Dr Graham Sinden
Food & Agriculture Organisation
Rome, 28 March 2011
This presentation should be used for your information only, and you are not permitted to reproduce it for dissemination to any third party. Whilst reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the information contained within this presentation is correct, the
presenter, the Carbon Trust, its agents, contractors and sub-contractors and the Government give no warranty and make no representation as to its accuracy and accept no liability for any errors or omissions.
Agenda
Setting the scene – international carbon flows
Sector emissions and trade – cotton
Product carbon footprinting
Footprinting and food - implementation
Challenges and next steps
Top 10 regional flows of CO2 embedded in goods and commodities
Note: Rest of Asia excludes China, Japan and India
Data includes flow of Scope 1-3 (direct, indirect and upstream) emissions arising in region of export that are embodied in trade flows to the region of import
Source: Carbon Trust Analysis; CICERO / SEI / CMU GTAP7 EEBT Model
Total Flows (GtCO2)
0.8
0.6
4.6
0.4
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.0
1. China to North America
2. China to Europe
3. China to Rest of Asia
4. Russia to Europe
5. Rest of Asia to Europe
6. North America to Europe
7. China to Japan
8. Africa to Europe
9. Rest of Asiato North America
10. Europe to North America
Other
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
47%
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
2004 Data
A consumption perspective alters the distribution of emissions between countries
120%
-60%
-40%
-20%
60%
40%
0%
SouthAfrica
Ukraine
ChinaRussiaCzech
Republic
20%
Poland
JapanItaly
GermanySpain
UK
USA
80%
Australia
CanadaBrazil
India
Rest of West Asia
France
EU
Other Annex 11
Non-Annex 11
Percen
tag
e c
han
ge i
n t
errit
oria
l em
issio
ns t
o r
efl
ect
imp
act
of
co
nsu
mp
tio
n o
f C
O2
2004 territorial CO2 emissions (27Gt)
1. Annex 1 to UNFCCC
Note 1: Includes CO2 emissions from production, process, transport and household sources only (27Gt in 2004); excludes non-CO2 emissions, and emissions due to land-use-change
Note 2: Based on an MRIO (multi region input/output) model allocating emissions to regions of consumption
Source: Carbon Trust Analysis; CICERO / SEI / CMU GTAP7 MRIO Model (2004)
Hong Kong
Sweden
2004 Data
Agenda
Setting the scene – international carbon flows
Sector emissions and trade – cotton
Product carbon footprinting
Footprinting and food - implementation
Challenges and next steps
Top 10 regional flows of emissions embodied in clothing
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
180
170
130
120
110
100
10
0
1. China to Europe
2. China to Japan
3. China to N America
4. Rest of Asiato N America
5. China to Rest of Asia
6. Asia to Europe
Total Flows (MtCO2)
8. India to Europe
9. Africa to Europe
10. Asia to Japan
Other
14%
13%
7. Europe to N America
10%
8%
7%
2%
29%
90
11%
178Mt CO2
5
8
6
10
3
4
1
7
92
Note: Excludes emissions associated with consumption in the same region as production.
Source: Carbon Trust Analysis; CICERO / SEI / CMU GTAP7 MRIO Model
Greenhouse gas emissions from cotton lint production by country
Ton CO2eper ton lint
Soil emissions are NOx emissions, principally from fertiliser application; Emissions from fertilisers and pesticides are from production.Source: Peter Grace (2009), Queensland University of Technology
Fertiliser production
Soil emissions
Pesticide production
Mechanical processes (fuel)
Ginning (electricity)
Other
Australia
3%
41%
10%
44%
23%
Brazil
7%
9%
3%
7%
24%
USA
9%
10%4%
34%
20%
15%
China
22%11%
11%
17%
15%4%
-62%
18%
48%
42%
9%
14%
4.4
India
6.4
7.0
9.6
11.7
5%
14%
6%
Flow of emissions in the Chinese textile sector to UK clothing
HK
Sri Lanka
Romania
Myanmar
Bangladesh
Malaysia
Cambodia
Turkey
Apparel Apparel
TextilesTextiles
Source: Carbon Trust Analysis; CICERO / SEI / CMU GTAP7 SPA Model
Agenda
Setting the scene – international carbon flows
Sector emissions and trade – cotton
Product carbon footprinting
Footprinting and food - implementation
Challenges and next steps
PAS 2050
Specification for the assessment of the life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services
Published in October 2008, PAS 2050 provides an agreed method of assessing product GHG emissions
– Fifteen month process: included Steering Group, expert workgroups & consultation
– Builds on existing LCA standards, together with IPCC, etc.
– Has been downloaded in over 100 countries, over 25,000 times
In 2009/10, the Carbon Trust is sponsored the UK Accreditation Service to develop an accreditation programme accreditation for PAS 2050
– Five certification bodies accredited to verify PAS 2050 results
– Only carbon footprinting method in the world to offer independent 3rd party certification
PAS 2050 is currently being reviewed; new version expected by summer 2011
– Feedback to-date suggests that the review will refine rather than re-write PAS 2050
– Carbon Trust participating in the Steering Group
– Harmonisation between WRI, ISO & PAS initiatives is being pursued
Standards and supporting information
PAS 2050: Product carbon
footprint measurement standard
Carbon Trust Code of Good
Practice for Product GHG
Emission and Reduction Claims:
Guidance for communicating
carbon footprint results, and for
setting and assessing GHG
reductions over time
Business Opportunity: including
six case studies (incl. potatoes,
orange juice, crisps, smoothies,
cotton clothing).
PAS Guide: Implementation of
PAS 2050, written for non-
experts
Agenda
Setting the scene – international carbon flows
Sector emissions and trade – cotton
Product carbon footprinting
Footprinting and food – implementation
Challenges and next steps
Footprinting and certification
The Carbon Trust Footprinting Company is a programme operator, offering footprinting and communication (including labelling) services
– Adopted PAS 2050 as the footprinting method to be followed
– Footprinted over 5,000 products (annual UK sales over £3bn/year)
– The Carbon Reduction Label can be found in over 80% of UK homes
The Carbon Trust Certification Company is a UKAS accredited certification body
– Provides independent, third party verification of PAS 2050 footprints
– Certification used for both internal assessment, and for external communication
– CT Certification Company competes against other accredited certifiers to provide verification of carbon footprints
FootprintExpert™ is the integrated set of PAS 2050-compliant methods and models that is licensed for use by third parties carrying out product footprinting
– Ensures consistency of results for the programme operator
– Lowers costs by providing established tools and models
A range of businesses have developed comparable footprints for foods
15
Emissions assessment and supply chain carbon footprinting
Innocent Smoothies
Harmonised supply chain carbon footprinting approaches will support effective decision-making regarding emissions
assessment and reduction.
Implementing product carbon footprinting for food
Carbon footprinting for foods has been done on both a cradle-to-gate basis (e.g. British Sugar) and a cradle-to-grave basis
– Cradle-to-gate enables the flow of consistent footprint information in the supply chain
– Cradle to grave supports decision-making, and is the basis for (optional) communication activities
Food supply chains combine some complex issues in product carbon footprinting. To implement our carbon footprinting activities, the Carbon Trust has already established models to address a range of complex issues
– Non-CO2 emissions
– E.g. Fertiliser use modelling of the non-CO2 emissions in food supply chains
– Co-product allocation
– Agricultural supply chains often need to address co-product allocation, both between foods (e.g. dairy & beef) and other products (e.g. grain & energy)
– Use phase & end-of-life
– Storage, treatment, utilisation and end-of-life can make a material difference to the cradle-to-grave footprint of food products
– Energy and waste
– Complexity and consistency addressed in models and sector guidance
Agenda
Setting the scene – international carbon flows
Sector emissions and trade – cotton
Product carbon footprinting
Footprinting and food - implementation
Challenges and next steps
Sector requirements: consistency and lower costs
Current focus is on standards (e.g. ISO, WRI, PAS); however, sector requirements will be required to drive consistency and lower costs
– Advantages
– Ensures that unique features of each sector can be addressed
– Lowers costs by standardising methods across the supply chain
– Improves consistency by ensuring common approaches across different sectors
– Challenges
– Who will meet the costs? (Development & maintenance takes resources)
– How to encourage participation? (Competing requirements undermines benefits)
Experience to date
– Carbon Trust has developed supplementary guidance that is consistent with PAS 2050
– Additional methods and tools/models/calculators
– Collaboration with industry sectors such as dairy
– World Resources Institute and Carbon Trust currently collaborating to develop sector requirements for the international ICT sector
– Engagement with industry will (hopefully) promote an agreed approach
(Some) Key issues in food and agriculture supply chain footprinting
Land use change
– In some circumstances, LUC emissions dominate the footprint of foods
– Simplification and consistency will facilitate application of footprinting
– WRI and CT have discussed the development of a global LUC model
– Accessible, free LUC emissions data
– Consistent approach; compatible with current standards
Biogenic carbon flows
– The sequestration and storage of atmospheric carbon in agriculture/food systems poses unique challenges for the sector
– Addressing these issues may require support (models) or simplification
Modular approaches
– Many processes in food supply chains are common across different sectors
– E.g. refrigeration, transport, waste
– Common approaches between sectors will
– simplify and lower the costs of implementation,
– improve comparability between product footprints
Summary
It is the emissions arising from consumption, not production, that need to be addressed
– Current international approaches may mislead, and even exacerbate, GHG emissions
– Product carbon footprinting takes a consumption view of emissions production
A consistent method for GHG assessment is required if we value
– Minimising costs for business
– Maximising benefit for business and consumers
There is a need for harmonisation between different initiatives
– Standards already exist, and further guidance is being developed
– Consistent assessment methods have already been applied across countries
– The opportunity exists to use current activities to inform future developments
Additional sector guidance will lower costs and improve comparability
– Complex issues in the food sector can be addressed through sector guidance or requirements
– Common approaches could be adopted for common processes within different product groups and sectors
Further information:
Dr Graham SindenStrategy Manager
© The Carbon Trust, 2009All rights reserved
The Carbon Trust is funded by Government. Any trademarks, service marks or logos used in this presentation are the property of the Carbon Trust (or its licensors). Nothing in this presentation shall be construed as granting any licence or right to use or reproduce any of the trademarks, service marks, logos, copyright or any propriety information in any way without the Carbon Trust’s prior written permission. The Carbon Trust enforcesinfringements of its intellectual property rights to the full extent permitted by law.
www.carbontrust.co.uk
Backup
Per person clothing consumption emissions by region
180
100
260
80
240
Ø 5160
220
40
120
0
6.56.05.55.00.5 4.54.03.53.02.52.01.51.00.0
IndiaAfrica
China
200
20
South America
Asia
Russian Federation
Europe
Oceania
North America
Japan280
160
140
Emissions per capita (kgCO2 - Consumption)
Population (billions)
Em
issio
ns p
er p
erso
n (
kg
CO
2 p
er y
ear)
Source: Carbon Trust Analysis; CICERO / SEI / CMU GTAP7 MRIO Model
Global average
Impact of a consumption based view on clothing emissions by country
300%
50%
100%
0%
Rest ofWestern Asia
Former Soviet Union
IndonesiaIndia
ChinaTaiwan
Greece
USA
-50%
France
Italy
Japan
HongKong
Spain
Germany150%
200%
250%
-100%
350%
UK
EUNon-Annex 1
Other Annex 1
Perc
enta
ge c
hange in c
ountr
y t
err
itori
al pro
duction
em
issio
ns t
o r
eflect
impact
of
final consum
ption o
f CO
2
Production emissions – MtCO2Note 1: Top 50 clothing producing countries (96% of emissions from global clothing production)
Note: [Includes direct emissions only] [Clarify this statement]
Source: Carbon Trust Analysis; CICERO / SEI / CMU GTAP7 MRIO Model
2004 Data
On-farm & ginning emissions for cotton production
10%
12%
20%
15%
22%
5%
10%
18%
23%
14%
25%
6.4
17%
15%
9%
14%
40%
11.7
9%
9.6
5%
5%
11%
7.0
Brazil Australia
Ginning
5%
Soil Emissions
Pesticides
N Fertliser
7%
9%
11%
24%
39%
7%
11%
Other Fertilisers
Mechanical Processes
Other
Non-MechanicalProcesses
USAIndia China
4.4
22%
31%
18%
Ton CO2-eper ton lint
Source: Peter Grace, Queensland University of Technology
PepsiCo and Walkers Product Footprinting & Labeling ProjectProducts Analyzed:
Walkers Crisps (Potato Chips) and Tropicana Orange Juice
Plans to analyze other brands (Quaker)
Key Outcomes for Walkers:
Product labeling exercise helped Walkers and suppliers
identify ways to reduce their carbon footprint – and achieve
operational efficiencies along the way.
Walkers cut carbon footprint of potato crisps by 7% which
resulted in savings of $600K
Labeling has had positive consumer impact: 10% increase
in positive reaction to label; 44% of consumers reacted
more positively to the company due to label.
Walkers’ Carbon Results & Opportunities Identified:
Majority of carbon footprint outside of operational control
(in raw materials production).
― Led Walkers to work across supply chain with suppliers to
reduce footprint.
Focused reduction efforts on manufacturing.
― Reduced energy use per kg chips by 33% from 2000-2007.
As an early adopter, became first company to carry Carbon
Reduction Label in 2007.
Continental Clothing Product Footprinting & Labeling Project
Products Analyzed:
“Earth Positive” Clothing Line
Key Outcomes for Continental:
Carbon label adds credibility to company’s existing
sustainability efforts.
Label gives certified footprint up to point of delivery -
makes it easier for customers to conduct their own
labeling efforts for finished products.
As first B2B company to pursue product labeling, have
first mover advantage in market.
Carbon Results and Opportunities Identified:
Cotton farming contributed to largest carbon impact across
the product life cycle.
Using renewable energy in farming and spinning reduced
CO2 emissions by 90%.
Identified carbon reduction strategies for processes within
spinning, water treatment, dyeing, and finishing, to reduce
footprint by an additional 15-20%.
On Pack
Point of
Sale
CSR Report
or Press
Website
Brochure /
Consumer
Education
External communications of carbon footprints
Emissions assessment and supply chain carbon footprinting
Emissions have the same impact on the atmosphere, irrespective of country of origin
– However, a production view of GHG emissions can be very deceptive for both net producer, and net consumer, countries
Supply chain carbon footprinting addresses this issue
– Whole of life cycle assessment
– All emissions, irrespective of
– Country of origin
– Country of use
– Country of end-of-life
Supply chains are complex, and the products arising from them are often the result of inputs from many countries.
– Supply chain carbon assessment takes a consumption view of emissions, including emissions from the whole life cycle.