Carbon Concerns How Standards and Labelling Initiatives Must Not Limit Agricultural Trade From Developing Countries

8/8/2019 Carbon Concerns How Standards and Labelling Initiatives Must Not Limit Agricultural Trade From Developing Countries

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/carbon-concerns-how-standards-and-labelling-initiatives-must-not-limit-agricultural 1/40

Carbon Concerns:

How Standards And Labelling Initiatives Must Not Limit Agricultural Trade From

Developing Countries

By James MacGregorMay 2010

Issue Brie No. 3

ICSD-IPC Platorm on Climate Change, Agriculture and rade



Carbon Concerns: How Standards And Labelling Initiatives Must Not Limit Agricultural Trade From Developing Countries

By Jam MacGrgrInternational Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

Carb Ccr:How Standards And Labelling Initiatives Must Not Limit

Agricultural Trade From Developing Countries

Issue Brie No. 3




ii

ICSD - IPC

Publihd by

International Centre or rade and Sustainable Development (ICSD)

International Environment House 2

7 chemin de Balexert, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland

el +41 22 917 8492 Fax +41 22 917 8093

E-mail: [email protected]

Visit ICSD’s website at: www.ictsd.org

And

International Food & Agricultural rade Policy Council (IPC)

1616 P St., NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20036, USA

el +1 202 328 5056 Fax +1 202 328 5133

Email: [email protected]

Visit IPC’s website at www.agritrade.org

Charlotte Hebebrand, President/CEO o IPC, and Marie Chamay Peyramayou, Manager o the ICSD Global

Platorm on Climate Change, rade Policies and Sustainable Energy, are the persons responsible or this initiative.

Acknowledgments:

We are grateul to Alexander Kasterine (International rade Centre) and Hasit Shah (Fresh Produce Exporters Association o

Kenya) or their review o and comments on the paper.

A drat o this paper was presented at an ICSD-IPC Dialogue on “Climate Change and International Agricultural rade

Rules” held in Geneva on 1 October 2009 (http://ictsd.org/i/events/dialogues/56512/). We are thankul to the participants

o this meeting or their comments.

his paper was produced under he ICSD Global Platorm on Climate Change, rade Policies and Sustainable Energy -

An initiative supported by DANIDA (Denmark); Ministry o Foreign Aairs o Finland; the Department or International

Development (U.K.); the Ministry or Foreign Aairs o Sweden; the Ministry o Foreign Aairs o Norway; Oxam

Novib; and ICSD’s institutional partners and project supporters such as the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Netherlands

Directorate-General o Development Cooperation (DGIS), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

(SIDA); and the Inter American Development Bank (IADB).

IPC wishes to thank the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and all o its structural

unders or their generous support.

ICSD and IPC welcome eedback and comments on this document. hese can be orwarded to Marie Chamay Peyramayou,

[email protected] and/or Christine St Pierre, [email protected].

Citation: Macgregor J. (2010). Carbon Concerns: How Standards and Labelling Initiatives Must Not Limit Agricultural Trade

from Developing Countries , ICSD–IPC Platorm on Climate Change, Agriculture and rade, Issue Brie No.3, International

Centre or rade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland and International Food & Agricultural rade Policy

Council, Washington DC, USA.

Copyright © ICSD and IPC, 2010. Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material or educational, non-

proit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

he views expressed in this publication are those o the authors and do not necessarily relect the views o ICSD and IPC

or the unding institutions.

ISSN 2075-5856




iii

ICSD - IPC

Contents

ABBReVIAtIons AnD ACRonYMs iv

LIst oF FIGURes, tABLes AnD BoXes v

FoReWoRD vi

eXeCUtIVe sUMMARY vii

IntRoDUCtIon 1

1. IntRoDUCtIon to stAnDARDs 2

1.1 Current ypes o Standards 2

1.2 Te Reasons or Setting PVS over Food 3

1.3 Current Private Standards to and rom the UK 4

2. IMPACt oF stAnDARDs 7

2.1 PVS Experience in Developing Countries 7

3. CARBon stAnDARDs 9

3.1 Who Wants Tese Standards? 11

3.2 What Might a Carbon Standard Look Like? 12

3.3 Examples o Carbon Standards 13

3.4 Calculating Carbon: Lie Cycle Analysis 21

3.5 Other Emerging Standards 22

3.6 Potential or Carbon Standards to Impact on rade 23

4. KeY ConCLUsIons AnD PoLICY ReCoMMenDAtIons 24

notes 26

ReFeRenCes 29




iv

ICSD - IPC

ABBReVIAtIons AnD ACRonYMs

B2B business-to-business

B2C business-to-consumer

BSE Bovine spongiorm encephalopathy

CO2e CO2 equivalent units

DECC Department or Energy and Climate Change (UK)

DFID Department or International Development (UK)

EC European Commission

EIO-LCA economic input-output lie cycle assessment

EU European Union

FFV resh ruit and vegetable

G gram

GHGs greenhouse gases

GLOBALGAP Global Partnership or Good Agricultural Practice

IIED International Institute or Environment and Development

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISO International Organization or Standardization

Kg kilogram

LCA lie cycle assessment

MRV Monitoring, Reporting, Verication

NGO non-governmental organization

NRI Natural Resources Institute

PAS Publically Available Specication

PVS private voluntary standard

UK United Kingdom

US United States o America

W watt






vi

ICSD - IPC

Te carbon embedded in internationally traded ood and agricultural goods – its measurement,as well as dierent ways o communicating its climate impact – is a rapidly emerging actor in

agricultural production, processing and trade. Te emerging, mainly non-statutory, private-sectordriven carbon labelling schemes raise a number o issues. Tey will – by design – alter costs andbenet-sharing across a wide range o stakeholders, including producers and consumers, the publicand private sector, and developing and developed countries, along all levels o globally-dispersedvalue chains. Also, how eective are they likely to be in changing consumption patterns?

Since 2007, there has been a new rat o carbon labelling initiatives mostly developed as privatevoluntary standard (PVS) by retailers. Te measurement o carbon embedded within individualproducts is rapidly becoming more sophisticated – and is certainly costly. Early experiments havenow been largely discredited particularly those which singled out air-reighting o resh ruits and

owers as a “carbon hotspot”, identied through airplane stickers. Newer initiatives involve moresophisticated lie cycle analyses to determine a product’s carbon ootprint. Tere is a clear dilemmahowever, since it is difcult to dene the boundaries o where a lie cycle analysis should beginand end, but simplied schemes are required to render any scheme workable, and costs bearable –especially or smaller producers.

echnical assistance and support is needed to assist developing country players participate in suchschemes, in particular smallholders. ransparency is needed to allay ears that the schemes are not

just another developed country orm o “green protectionism.” Carbon-labelling schemes couldprovide developing countries with new market opportunities and niches based on carbon efciency,but also run the risk o restricting their market access.

o be eective vis-a-vis consumers, labels must be developed in a transparent manner, and clearly communicate what greenhouse gas emissions they account or, and which ones they do not.Moreover, they should speciy how they interact with other social and environmental standards,and how they aect development opportunities in developing countries. At the same time, labelsmust also be simple and easy to understand, i they are to be viable.

Tis paper examines the current status o carbon labelling initiatives in the ood industry. It looks athow embedded carbon is likely to be marketed and how this phenomenon may impact agriculturaltrade rom developing countries.

Te ICSD-IPC Platorm on Climate Change, Agriculture and rade is pleased to release thispaper trusting that it will contribute to a better understanding o these issues and to an inormeddebate and to equitable schemes and regulation.

Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz

Chie Executive, ICSD

Charlotte Hebebrand,

President /CEO, IPC

FoReWoRD




vii

ICSD - IPC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Te existence o standards particularly in ood and agricultural produce has expanded rapidly overthe last 20 years. Such standards have not only resulted in improved quality o products, but have

also allowed greater efciency by helping producers and other agents in the supply chain accessinormation about what customers want and expect.

Tese standards can result rom public legislation, or example through the EU Food Laws. Or, where specic legislation is missing, it is common or vocal consumer concerns to be turned intolabels or standards. A rat o carbon labelling initiatives has hit the market since 2007. Most o theseare private voluntary standard (PVS) that are initiated, implemented, and maintained by retailers.

Tese standards could be expected to benet many people in developed consumer societies.Governments would benet rom a widespread carbon standard, which would raise consumer

(voter) awareness o the carbon implications o their purchases. I governments were ever to ndthemselves in a position to compel their electorates to emit less carbon in order to comply withinternational agreements, the required legislation would be easier to implement i the historic data,

which such a management system would generate, were in place. In addition, consumers may bemore open to such moves i they have already made some movement towards a preerence or low carbon products themselves.

Consumers who express concern over the carbon emissions would also benet rom havingadditional inormation that allows them to make an inormed choice. Retailers would be ableto collect the market premium that consumers are willing to pay on low carbon goods, and they

would also have an incentive to create supply chain management systems that address carbon issues

beore it becomes a legal requirement. Early adoption o such systems may well produce rst-moveradvantage over competitors in the longer-term.

Tere are a number o difculties associated with these standards, however. Much o the demand orcarbon standards stems rom the ear that producers in developed countries will simply outsourcetheir production to developing countries that are not burdened with emission caps. Tere is otenthe assumption that imported ood and agriculture goods will automatically have a higher carbonootprint due to greater transport emissions. Tis assumption can oten be inaccurate, however,as developing countries oten rely on less carbon intensive methods o agriculture by using lessertiliser, mechanisation, and energy or heating. o calculate the true carbon cost o a good, thosesetting standards might rely on Lie Cycle Analysis to gain a more exact measurement. So ar,however, methods or ully veriying and monitoring carbon emissions are not ully reliable. Tey also place an expensive additional burden on producers, who might be expected to pay or thisverication.

Te second concern is based on the idea o ‘ecological space’ -- the concept o measuring andcomparing countries’ current or historical greenhouse gas emissions and calculating each country’sshare o the total additional emissions that the planet can sustain without serious disruption toclimate. Te relatively low contribution o emissions rom developing countries (less than 15percent o historical carbon emissions) and the act that they currently emit ar less per capitathan developed nations (the poorest are just 2 percent o those in the US) would allow them the

ecological space or non-restrictive economic development. When reducing demand or imports(particularly in agriculture) rom developing countries, we place the burden o reducing emissionsunairly on to those least responsible or them. Tis would be contrary to the UN climate change




viii

ICSD - IPC

convention’s recognition o global inequity in responsibility or dealing with climate change. Tecarbon issue needs to be seen in light o the Kyoto Protocol’s identication o clear and dierentiatedresponsibilities or developed and developing nations.

Te third concern is that carbon standards could result in a trade-o between environmental anddevelopment concerns. Agricultural trade and a move away rom subsistence style o arming havebeen promoted in developing countries or many reasons including boosting incomes, encouraginginvestment in inrastructure and education, improving access to export markets, and creating asource o oreign exchange. Where agricultural development provides high benets, cutting o demand or these imports or the sake o environmental concerns comes with a high cost to poverty reduction and economic and social development goals.

Tis paper looks at the existing types o carbon standards and makes the ollowing policy recommendations:

• Carbonfootprintscanplayaroleinreducingcarbondioxideemissionsinthefoodsystems. Whether this is a problem or developing country exports is unclear.

• Itisimportanttoclarifytherolesofprivatestandardsandpubliclegislationinaddressingcarbon concerns in the ood system.

• Itiscriticaltolearnfromsuccessesinthesustainablefoodtradebetweendevelopingcountryproducers and consumers in the developed nations. Tese successes should be scaled up andthe principles that underlie those successes should be identied and understood.

• Analysisofcarbonemissionsprovidesalensthroughwhichonecananalysebroaderissuesaecting sustainable development in agricultural sectors in developing countries.

• Consumer-facingcarbonlabelsandcarbonprivatevoluntarystandardsareunabletolimit

emissions eectively without appropriately priced environmental externalities.• epotentialforprivatesectorbuyerstoinsistoncontractualreductionsincarbonfora

product harbour the greatest potential or actual carbon reductions in the ood system.




1

ICSD - IPC

Tis paper examines the current status o carbonlabelling initiatives in the ood industry and what

implications they have or trade with developingcountries.

Since 2007, therehas been a rat o new carbon labellinginitiatives that aimto identiy carbonin supply chains o production.1Tis la-

belling, which has largely driven by consumer

nations, is sometimes the result o publiclegislation, or example through the EU FoodLaws. hese regulations rame this issue o entry to market or produce rom developingcountries. Where specic public legislationis missing, however, it is common or vocalconsumer concerns to be turned into labels orstandards. In this case, the push is or carbonlabelling largely as a private voluntary standard(PVS), initiated, implemented, and maintainedby retailers.

Private voluntary standards have in act becomean economic tool used by businesses to increasequality and protability in their supply chainsand to comply with public legislation. PVS areexible and can evolve over time; they can otenbe adapted to address many issues not envisagedat their inception. For example, in ood supply chains that link consumers in the developed

world to producers in the developing world,PVS have been used to ensure Europeans accessto ‘risk-ree’ (minimal risk) ood. PVS have alsobeen widely discussed as posing a barrier toentry or small-scale producers, excluding many poor armers rom lucrative export markets.Tese PVS tend to be enorced, managed, andveried by other supply chain participants. Tispaper looks at how our carbon is likely to bemarketed and how we can expect this to impactagricultural trade rom developing countries.

In order to assess this impact, this paper examinesthree major concerns with these initiatives.Te rst concern is that carbon-labelling

may not prove to be an eective method o reducing global carbon emissions. Agriculture

and ood production are a key contributorto global carbon emissions but difculties inunderstanding exactly how emissions shouldbe included or measured make it hard to judgedierent goods airly, particularly when there isa deliberate ocus on air-miles. Tis paper aimsto describe how each o these concerns is likely to arise. Policy recommendations in light o them are provided.

Te second concern is the difculty in assessing where emissions reductions take place, who would benet rom the reduction, and whetherthis result would be considered ‘air’ under theguidelines or dierentiated responsibility laiddown under the Kyoto Protocol/Copenhagen

Accord. Tis question centres on the notiono ‘ecological space’ – the idea that eachcountry should be allotted a share o the totaladditional emissions the planet can sustain

without serious disruption to climate, and that

that share should be based on each country’scurrent and historical greenhouse gas emissions.Te relatively low contribution o emissionsrom developing countries should allow themthe ecological space or non-restrictive econo-mic development.

Te third concern is that these carbon issuesmay result in a trade-o between environmentalconcerns and economic development oppor-tunities. Agriculture or export has long beenhailed as an important contribution to economicand social development and consumers may substitute away rom these imported goods,

which may have high energy or transport inputs,and instead avour more locally produced goods.It is unclear how trade-os between local goodsand global environmental goods can or shouldbe made, or by whom. Tis report provides anintroduction to the dominant issues surroundingthe use o PVS to help supply chains seamlessly

link rural armers in developing countries with consumers in developed ones. Much o this paper ocuses on the well-researched resh

IntRoDUCtIon

Since 2007, there has beena rat o new carbon label-ling initiatives that aim toidentiy carbon in supply chains o production.1




2

ICSD - IPC

ruit and vegetable (FFV) trade between sub-Saharan Arica and the UK, though it shouldbe remembered that carbon is emerging asa communicable consumer-acing issue in a

growing number o countries in Europe andbeyond. Tis report poses the question: In

light o apparent development and consumerbenets rom this trade, what is the role o PVSin continuing and upgrading this trade, and cancarbon dioxide emissions be integrated without

risking the local development benets romthis trade?

1. IntRoDUCtIon to stAnDARDs

Standards that are currently available come ina number o orms. Tese can be divided into

two broad categories.

1. Public adard

Tere are a number o general ood laws thatoutline the rules or entry to the market, aroundmaximum residue limits and provenance. Forextra-EU countries, EU legislation covers oodquality and ood saety or resh produce exportsto the EU. First, imports must comply with thegeneral regulations on health control o oodstus

o non-animal origin. It is the responsibility o the importer to comply with hygiene rulesbased on the level o hazard and on contaminantindicators (such as maximum pesticide residuelevels). Second, EU ‘general labeling’ rulesstipulate a number o indicators including theplace o origin o ood products, quantity, andits minimum durability. Tird, the EU requirescompliance with marketing standards, whichdescribe the minimum requirements o quality,size, and presentation.

Tese are internalised by businesses complying with these regulations and largely resolvedbusiness-to-business (B2B), such as betweena manuacturer and retailer. Indeed, many important disputes about ood saety and marketaccess or developing countries into Europe arehandled under the auspices o EU laws betweennation states, yet these remain largely invisible toEuropean consumers (Homer, 2009b).

Many o these standards are set by the InternationalOrganization or Standardization (ISO), based

in Geneva. A non-governmental organisation,the ISO sets worldwide proprietary industrial

and commercial standards, which oten becomelaw, either through treaties, trade agreements, orindividual government-set national standards.

2. Priva adard

Private voluntary standards (PVS) are rulesthat speciy how the production process o agiven product should be managed; the rulesalso regulate the nature o the product itsel.PVS go beyond public (legislative) standards

in their stringency. Moreover, PVS are notalways created in apublic orum, butrather created by an industry partici-pant.3 Yet unlike pub-lic standards, PVSare in theory notmandatory or pro-ducers and other pla-yers in the supply chain. In reality , how-ever, as standardshave prolierated rms might eel a growingneed to adhere to them as a means toachieve market access. An example o theseB2B standards are those established by UK supermarkets to ensure their suppliers meetood saety laws and satisy consumer demandsor sae (and high-quality) produce.

A recent example is the private standardsassociated with the ood system, which haveprolierated since the 1990s. Tis prolieration

Yet unlike public stan-dards, PVS are in theory not mandatory or pro-ducers and other players inthe supply chain. In reality,however, as standards have prolierated rms might eel a growing need toadhere to them as a means

to achieve market access.

1.1 Curr typ sadard




3

ICSD - IPC

has its roots in ood saety concerns raised by public authorities in the early 1990s, e.g. BSE.However, the increase in the number o standardsis not due to ood saety concerns alone.

Private voluntary stan-dards have in act becomean economic tool usedby businesses to bothincrease quality and pro-tability in their supply chains and to comply

with public legislation.PVS are exible, evolve

over time, can be used tohelp streamline supply chains, and oten adapt to address many issuesnot envisaged at their inception. For example,a combination o public concern and lobbyingby campaigning NGOs saw PVS being used todeal with perceived problems associated witheconomic development, environmental concerns,and human rights – including labour rights, childlabour, and inclusion o small-scale growers.Compliance to private voluntary standards is

usually monitored through a local certicationbody against benchmarked norms.4

PVS operate at a number o levels: at the small-scale producer level, to ensure sequencing o production on multiple small-scale arms and tostreamline costs o aggregation o product5; and

at the consumer level, to ensure UK retailers’shelves are stocked with specic products year-round.6 Tese are business-to-business7 orconsumer-acing labels.8 PVS evolve over time,9

with some becoming harmonised10 and someremaining individual (and not harmonized)retailer-led.11

Standards, particularly private standards,12 have greatly expanded in recent years as the

gap between consumer concerns and publiclegislation has widened.13 Standards vary rominternational and collective (e.g., the Global FoodSaety Initiative, GLOBALGAP), to national(e.g., the British Retail Consortium GlobalStandard), to company-owned (e.g., esco’sNature’s Choice, Carreour’s Filière Qualité).Tey can be business-to-business schemes (B2B)or customer-acing schemes in the sense that they oer visual assurance through the use o labellingand act as a point o dierence or unique selling

point (B2C) (e.g. Fairtrade, Organic).14 Standards enable the

Private voluntary stan-dards have in act become an economic tool used by businesses to both increase quality and protability intheir supply chains and to comply with public legislation.

1.2 T Ra r sig PVs vr Fd

setter to considertranserring respon-sibility or compli-ance to other parti-cipants in the supply chain. Risk and com-petiveness are pri-mary economic dri-vers; compliance withpublic laws is a clearcatalyst as well. For

agricultural trade with developing countries,this means transerring compliance to exportersand small-scale armers in countries that havepublic standards and laws that are dierent rom

those in the consuming country. Developingcountry producers may struggle to comply.Te chie economic drivers or setting PVS over

international agricultural supply chains are:

ecicy. High transaction costs are typically encountered in supply chains that span largegeographical distances. In these supply chainsone challenge is eectively communicatingthe needs o a diverse, oten geographically dispersed, set o consumers to another diverse,oten dispersed set o producers. AppropriatePVS can help lower transaction costs by providing access or producers and other agentsin the supply chain to inormation about whatcustomers want and expect. Tey can also helpby allowing inormation to ow more eectively and by ensuring that changes to production

systems and processes made by producers are well inormed and well targeted. PVS canhelp deliver efciency improvements in line

Standards enable the set-ter to consider transerring responsibility or compli-ance to other participants

in the supply chain. Risk and competiveness are pri-mary economic drivers;compliance with public laws is a clear catalyst as well.




4

ICSD - IPC

with what the markets want. Efciency creates winners and losers. As MacGregor (2009a)argues, “developing a standard is driven by

economic efciency

concerns throughouta supply chain butimplementing a stan-dard is oten moti-vated by maximisingnancial efciency or a particular parti-cipant or sector.”

Willig pay.

Consumers may be willing to pay a pre-miumor a product i it meets the standards they demand. In the UK, consumer research showsthat a signicant proportion o UK shoppersalready associate many ethically sourced products

with premium products, and they are willingto pay a premium or ethical attributes.15 Yet,the association o low-carbon emissions withpremium products remains untested.

Privaiai d ay. Te onus o oodsaety is increasingly placed on retailers andsellers o ood, or example, through Article17 o the General Food Law Regulation (EC)

178/2002, which applies to ood businessoperators. Article 17 species that:

Food and eed business operators at allstages o production, processing anddistribution within the businesses undertheir control shall ensure that oods oreeds satisy the requirements o ood law

which are relevant to their activities andshall veriy that such requirements are

met.16

In this case, the key incentives or using PVSinclude reducing risks. Tis is well illustratedby GLOBALGAP, a private sector body thatsets PVS or the certication o agriculturalproducts at the production stage, originally toreduce risks presented rom ood saety (seeBox 1).

In the UK supermarkets

are increasingly working closely with Department or International Development (DFID) and now the Depart-ment or Energy and Cli-mate Change (DECC) toaddress the development and climate impacts o the goods they sell.

1.3 Curr Priva sadard ad rm h UK

We have chosen the UK as case study since itboasts the world’s largest airreight ood hub inits London airport; it imports over hal o reshproduce by air rom sub-Saharan Arica; and ithas been a leader in Europe or the developmentand implementation o PVS.

In the UK there has been an evolution in PVSor ood since the early 1990s (see Figure 1).Most PVS were not designed with the specicneeds o the developing country supply chainsin mind. Private business-to-business standardsdominated the eld, with the environmentalmanagement system standard ISO 14000 andother private good agricultural practices havingdirect implications or developing country producers. ISO is currently developing a new standard, ISO 14067, which will examinethe ‘carbon ootprint o products’. Te new

standard will be available in March 2011.Since 2000, there has been a steady change in

emphasis as PVS started to ace consumers,bringing them inormation about labour rightsand social conditions.

During the 2000s, supermarkets have stoppedocusing exclusively on their customers and star-ted to address all citizens, be they di-rect customers ornot. While suchsteps have beenviewed by someas cynical marketingploys, they havebeen welcomed by public authoritiesin the UK, wheresupermarkets areincreasingly wor-king closely with Department or International

Development (DFID) and now the Depart-ment or Energy and Climate Change

“developing a standard is driven by economic efci-ency concerns throughout a supply chain but imple-menting a standard is otenmotivated by maximising nancial ef-ciency or a particular participant or sector.”




5

ICSD - IPC

Figur 1. trd i PVs i Fd i h UK

Source: Homer and MacGregor, 2009.

(DECC) to address the development andclimate impacts o the goods they sell.Supermarket sector has grown to dominate theUK grocery market during the early 2000s and

consumers and citizens have become commonaudiences or super-markets.

Shareholders have also emerged in the last decadeas a lobby, demanding environmental issuesbe addressed. Currently, the emerging themesbeing addressed are equality and rights and

how these apply to development, environment,and access to economic opportunity.

Figure 1 indicates the co-evolution o standardsamong public and private actors. Tis evolutionis important since it illustrates how businesseshave used PVS as a tool to address concernsand threats as expressed by society and whichmight impact their reputation and, thereore,the viability o their business. Oten PVS areused as tools to learn about a given issue andto develop appropriate mechanisms to deal withconsumer concerns. One question is how this isbeing addressed through carbon labelling, which

we will look at in more detail in Sec-tion Tree.

Since 1990, there has been a transormation inpublic ood saety laws (see Graham, 2006)

but these shits have been dwared by changes tothe global PVS inrastructure in the ood system– in particular GLOBALGAP (see next section).New PVS have included: the Ethical radingInitiative; Rainorest Alliance environmentalpresence in cocoa, tea, and coee; and Fairtradein a spectrum o ood products.

With so many companies, products, producernations, and supply chain processes, there isno one dominant direction or these PVS.However, it is clear that successes are being

built upon. Mainstream products producedby Multinational Corporations are now beingtargeted and branded as well. Emblematic




6

ICSD - IPC

Bx 1. GLoBALGAP – exampl a Fd Idury sadard

For developing countries, the most important PVS during the past decade has beenGLOBALGAP, a private sector body that sets voluntary B2B standards or the agriculturalproducts. “Te GLOBALGAP standard is primarily designed to reassure consumers abouthow ood is produced on the arm by minimising detrimental environmental impacts o arming operations, reducing the use o chemical inputs and ensuring a responsible approachto worker health and saety as well as animal welare” (GlobalGAP, 2009).

Te scheme covers the whole agricultural production process o the certied product rombeore the plant is in the ground (origin and propagation material control points) or rom when

the animal enters the production process, to the non-processed end product. No processing,manuacturing, or slaughtering is covered.17 It has become the most widely implemented andrequired PVS or primary production o agricultural products, with over 80,000 certiedproducers in 80 countries.18 By the early 2000s, it had become the de acto requirement orresh produce in the UK.19

Its signicance or developing countries is that in January 2005, its European supermarketmembers made GLOBALGAP certication mandatory or its suppliers, including small-scalearmers in developing countries. An option was introduced to allow small-scale armers tocomply as a collective group (GLOBALGAP option 2) and thereore avoid the costs o havingto certiy as separate units.20 Te criteria are updated every three years to reect changes in

technology and the market. Te most recent update to GLOBALGAP (version three) has ledto greater challenges or small-scale armers and “could accelerate smallholder departure romexport markets.”21

At present, carbon is absent rom the compliance criteria or GLOBALGAP, in the third andmost recent version (2008). Te preservation o above- and below-ground carbon stocks isnot mentioned throughout the text. Evidence o previous land use is required, but ocuseson ood saety risks by pollution or contamination. Te consultation period or version ourbegan in September 2009, and is hosted through an on-line orum.22 Tere is no mentiono additional carbon standards to be included. Water use, however, appears to be the newestaddition to the standard.

brands include Fairtrade cocoa in Cadbury’sDairy Milk and Rainorest Alliance certied tea

in category-leader Lipton’s PG ips, which is aUnilever subsidiary.

From a practical viewpoint, the emergence o any new standard, public or private, will tend tohave several eects:

• Amplify existing inequalities:all standards will impose (direct and indirect)costs on businesses. In general, stan-dards ampliy existing inequalitiesamong stakeholders and competing

suppliers. Tose with ewer assets,urthest rom market, least efcient,

and recent entrants, are the most likely losers while the larger, asset-rich, marketincumbents, tend to do the best and areable to transer the risks and costs o compliance to the weakest.

• Readjustmenttosupplychains,business models: standards provide con-spicuous incentives to ind new

ways o conducting business, otenincurring costs o learning and




7

ICSD - IPC

PVS have also been widely discussed as posinga barrier to entry or small-scale producers,excluding many poor armers rom lucrative

export markets. Many industry participants inproducer countriesargue that PVS arenot voluntary , butare in practice man-datory or exporthorticulture. Tis isdue to the use o PVS by almost allo the buyers, whoare relatively ew

in number. Reusalto comply withthese standards be-comes a barrier tosecuring access to

these buyers and their markets. Producers andexporters thereore worry that extra costs romincluding new standards or reducing carbonreduction in supply chains will increase thecost o entering the market without grantingadequate compensatory benets through im-proved market share, protability, or security o trading relationships.

A lot has been written on the experience o PVS in ood supply chains lining consumers

with producers in developing countries. Tereis a spectrum o experience rom positive tonegative, too abundant to cover here.23 Tissection, instead, describes some o the methodsby which PVS can have positive or negative

impacts and how this wide range o experienceshave relevance or carbon initiatives in theood system.

In Arica, trade and technology diusion otenlags behind the rest o the world. Tis meansgreater entrenched inefciencies across the

business landscape. Tere are o course many examples o good practice, but the wholesaleuptake, and scalability, o best practice remainssub-optimal. Indeed, the newest donors toassist Arica are the Gates and RockeellerFoundations through the Alliance or a GreenRevolution in Arica (AGRA), which aims inpart to address this issue.

Private standards have helped to re-assert theneed or other agents in the supply chain to

play a more active role in developing innovative ways to address missing institutions, loweringtransaction costs, and solving marketimperections. For example, exporters can play a role in helping to overcome capital marketailures by providing seeds and other inputsto armers whose costs can be deducted romthe harvested crop (thus the crop serves ascollateral or the provision o credit). Exporterscan provide extension services and technicalexpertise as well, to overcome the notorious

weaknesses o public sector institutions inproviding extension services.24 Tese practicalsolutions have resulted in part rom promptsprovided by PVS.

here are numerous subtle ways in whichtrade in agricultural products beneits deve-loping countries. Moving rom subsistencearming to agriculture or export throughlonger, more complex, and diverse trade

networks is beneicial to developing worldarmers and their communities or severalreasons:

2. IMPACt oF stAnDARDs

Producers and exporters worry that extra costs rom including new stan-dards or reducing car-bon reduction in supply chains will increase the cost o entering the mar-ket without granting ade-quate compensatory bene-

ts through improved mar-ket share, protability, or security o trading rela-tionships.

2.1 PVs expric i Dvlpig Curi

implementation. Tis might meansome changes in sourcing, changesin contracting, and other elementso a company and even an industry’s

business model.

• Monitoring, Reporting, Verication(MRV) systems will need to bedeveloped, tweaked, and realigned toenable seamless compliance at crucial

points along the ood supply chains.




8

ICSD - IPC

• Itallowsfarmerstodiversifyawayfrom what their neighbours are growing. Tisreduces the ‘east and amine’ cyclesand price uctuations or everyone in

the locality – both those producing orexport and those still producing or localmarkets. Reducing price uctuationmakes it easier to plan investments asthe return will be less uncertain. Andit vastly increases the potential numberand geographical scope o buyers orproduce. Tis should reduce demanductuation, which allows armers tobetter estimate the income they will

receive or their crop.• Access to export markets increases thevalue o crops. For example, weight or

weight, green beans are worth ten timesmore than maize. Tis increases localincomes.

• Increasing incomes allows a greatersurplus to be reinvested in agriculturalsystems. Tis encourages the uptakeo technologies to increase output orimprove quality.

• Producingforexportrequiresagriculturalstandards to be raised. Tis requireseducation and provides an incentive orgovernments and communities to investin it. Encouraging education is likely to have many positive side benets orcommunities.

• Exportproduceismorelikelytorequiresome orm o processing to make itsuitable or export (e.g., packaging).Tis adds value to the produce close tothe point o production and providesmore livelihoods and income than stapleood produce.

• Trade rarely moves only in onedirection; increased access to export

markets is likely to increase access toimports. Tis may diversiy local oodmarkets, reducing price variability and aid technology transer. rade is

one source (oten the main source) o oreign exchange or developing worldarmers. Without access to oreignexchange, countries cannot accessimported products and technologies.Imports o capital products, whichare not domestically manuactured,promote development and increasesagricultu-ral incomes.

Te net costs or challenges o this orm o trade can be daunting, however. Despite thepotential or win-win situations in this ormo trade - with consumers gaining accessto exotic and out-o-season products ataordable prices and growers gaining accessto lucrative markets - the trading relationshipis by no means automatic or easily obtainable.Tese costs are at the macro level in the ormo public investments in standards agencies,upgraded skills required or management in

agronomy and inrastructure development,and monitoring o trades. Tey are alsoat the micro level through producers andsupply chains ensuring and demonstratingcompliance in the orm o investments inlogistics, production, and marketing. Inthose cases where international developmentbenets can be demonstrated, there areopportunities to leverage development aid andtechnical assistance and other support, whichcan reduce total cost burdens, but also havetheir own costs through intervention into theprivate sector, such as cost escalation. Tisposes important questions in terms o long-term sustainability.




9

ICSD - IPC

I carbon is to be a per-sistent concern and pri-vate businesses are tobe assessed according totheir carbon emissions,then PVS will likely helpidentiy hotspots and,where possible, reduce emissions.

3. CARBon stAnDARDs

Carbon is a relatively late and recent entrantinto the PVS arena or the ood system. It

needs to be seen as parto a process change inthe supply chain, notas a stand-alone actor.I carbon is to be apersistent concern andprivate businesses are tobe assessed according totheir carbon emissions,then PVS will likely help

identiy hotspots and, where possible, reduce emissions. Private sectorresponses will include redirecting ood supply chains to lower carbon alternatives and mightinclude opportunities to oset outside theirsupply chains. Te best chances or successare i resulting new business models can bringabout cost savings or more efcient, securesupply chains.

For the purposes o this paper, we are looking at all

agricultural trade rom developing countries, not just the niche products such as Fairrade or otherconspicuous brands. It is crucial to note that ormainstream ood products, PVS have been mostly used as business-to-business (B2B) toolkits thathelp acilitate trading relationships. Tese tendnot to be consumer-acing in the same sense asniche certication schemes. Although these aredeveloped in response to consumer concerns,they are not necessarily used as marketing tools oras a unique selling point to dierentiate products(MacGregor et al , 2009). Until quite recently,

when carbon became a consumer concern, theprivate sector had not seen competitive advantagein acing the consumer with such inormation onmainstream products.

A key question is whether standards are theright vehicle to achieve the necessary reductionsin greenhouse gases (GHGs). According tothe Worldwatch Institute Report, June 2009,

“innovations in ood production and land use

that are ready to bescaled-up today could

reduce greenhouse gasemissions equivalentto roughly 25 percento global ossil uelemissions and present the best opportunity to remove greenhouse gases already inthe atmosphere.” On the other hand, theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s(IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report has concludedthat in the short term soil carbon sequestration

(enhanced sinks) is the mechanism with thehighest mitigation potential (89 percent).

It is clear we should be willing to accept changesboth in production and consumption o oodproduction and land use as part o the globaleort to increase mitigation o GHGs. Withrising concern over carbon and new publiclaws being implemented in many countries,the ood industry is looking to understand andlimit its exposure. PVS are typically developed

to address specic concerns and carbon is aninteresting example o a concern to be addressedsince it is a global negative externality and thereis no one culprit.

Reducing carbonneeds, however,should be seen asan important ele-ment o sustainabledevelopment. Tispaper has already discussed how in-creasing agricultural production and tradecan have signicant benets to developingcountries. An obvious concern is thatreducing demand or imports in an attemptto reduce air-miles and carbon emissions may come at a high social and economic cost. Any publicly or privately set standard should takeinto account the potential trade-os between

environmental and development concerns.

A key question is whether standards are the right vehicle to achieve the necessary re-ductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs).

An obvious concern is that reducing demand or imports inan attempt to reduce air-miles and carbon emissions may come at a high social and economic

cost.




10

ICSD - IPC

Figur 2. explrig h suaiabl Dvlpm equai

Source: MacGregor, 2009b.

When judging thesuitability o stan-dards as a vehicleor reducing car-bon, the secondimportant conside-ration is where car-bon emissions takeplace and who

should be held res-ponsible or them.

For example, or green beans grown in Kenyabut consumed in the UK, which country isresponsible or the carbon emis-sions? Should itbe counted as part o Kenya’s carbon emissions(0.2t per capita in 2008) or the UK’s (9.2t percapita in 2008)?25 Under the Kyoto Protocolmodel, production outsourced to outside itsborders counts as reductions in a country’stotal emissions, even though the same level o end consumption is maintained. Tis “shaky arithmetic” has been identied as a weakness,26

which ultimately provides incentives or highemission countries to outsource productionto lower emission countries. Te act that thismight lead to more production, and hence

jobs, technology transer, and multipliers ordeveloping nations needs to be actored intothe discussion. In this way, we can oreseea possible increase in demand or carbon

labelling by the private sector as consumersare wary o more producers outsourcing theirproduction abroad to avoid caps on emissions

in their domestic production areas. Tis wouldnot reduce carbon but increase it as the amounto transport increases.

Whether outsourcing production would really result in increases in emissions is a question

we address later in thepaper, but a primary concern is that by

reducing demand orimports (particularly in agriculture) romdeveloping countries

we place the burdeno reducing emissionsunairly on to them. Tis would be againstthe climate change convention’s recognition o global inequity in responsibility or dealing withclimate change. Te carbon issue needs to be seenin light o the Kyoto Protocol’s identicationo clear and dierentiated responsibilities ordeveloped and developing nations. Developingcountries are responsible or less than 15 percento historical carbon emissions and currently emitar less per capita than developed nations (thepoorest are just 2 percent o those in the US)and so should not be expected to suer greatercosts rom policies aimed at curbing emissions,e.g. reducing demand or products grown indeveloping countries i they prove to be higher

in carbon intensity. According to the idea o “ecological space”, a concept that is denedearlier in the paper, it could be argued that the

When judging the suit-ability o standards as a vehicle or reducing carbon, the second important consideration is where carbon emissions take place and whoshould be held respon-sible or them.

A primary concern is that by reducing demand or imports (particularly in

agriculture) rom deve-loping countries weplace the burden o re-ducing emissions unairly on tothem.






12

ICSD - IPC

Retailers have an incen-tive to create supply chainmanagement systems that address carbon issues inadvance o expected go-vernment legislation tomake such systems a legal requirement.

Governments would bene- it rom a widespread carbon standard as it rai-

ses awareness with consu-mers (voters) o the car-bon implications o their purchases.

Drawing rom the literature and recent expe-rience (Bolwig and Gibbon, 2009; MacGregoret al 2009), a carbon standard should encompasssome o the ollowing design characteristics:

• Provideauniformwayofcalculatingtheembedded carbon;

• Oerauniversalandindependentappli-cation to all products regardless o theirmethod or location o production;

• Account for a majority of embeddedcarbon within products; and

• Be simple (and by extension cost-eective) enough to be practically implemented.

Furthermore, it should include some o theollowing impact characteristics:

• Notfavourcertainproductionprocesses.• Be recognised and trusted by stake-

holders in the industry and customers.• Facilitate monitoring, reporting and

veriying. In particular, a standardshould be auditable and a system must bein place so that calculations o embeddedcarbon can be independently veriedto discourage ‘cheating’. An indepen-

dent body would have to uphold thestandard and monitor participants tothis end. Furthermore, this body has

3.2 Wha Migh a Carb sadard Lk Lik?

question: “What do we actually want consumersto do?”. In the event that developed worldgovernments would ever choose to impose andenorce personal carbon allowances on citizens,

which were required to purchase goods that would have varying levels o embedded carbon,the system would gain signicant demandrom consumers. Low carbon products wouldallow individuals to consume more or theirxed carbon ration, but all products wouldneed to report on their carbon emissions to astandardized and accepted metric.

Retailers have an incentive to create supply chain

management systems that address carbon issues inadvance o expectedgovernment legisla-tion to make suchsystems a legal requ-irement. Early adop-tion o such sys-tems may well pro-duce rst-mover ad-vantage over com-petitors in the lon-

ger-term. Retailers would clearly like to be ableto recoup some o the costs associated withimplementing such a system rom the consumer.However, i they are to remain competitivein the short term against their non-adopting

competitors, recouping the costs o the systemrom consumers is dependent on consumers’

willingness to either pay or a premium, or nd ways o streamlining costs rom their supply

chains. Plus, emerging consumer preerencesreported in surveys include demanding to know more about the carbon emissions associated withtheir purchases, which provides a conspicuousincentive to provide some relevant consumer-acing inormation.

Governments would be-net rom a widespreadcarbon standard as it

raises awareness withconsumers (voters) o the carbon implicationso their purchases. I governments nd them-selves in a position tocompel their electorates to emit less carbon inorder to comply with international agreements(such as through personal carbon allowances),the required legislation would be easier toimplement i the historic data generated by

such a management system were already inplace. In addition, such moves may be morepopular i consumers have already made somemovement towards a preerence or low carbonproducts themselves.




13

ICSD - IPC

A cynical personmight iner thateveryone wants, evenneeds, to be seento be contributingto the latest global

environmental threato climate change.Large retailers an-nounce grand plansto identiy carbonthroughout their sto-res but are sluggish todeliver. Consumers,

when surveyed, say they shop to reduce carbon, but oten ail todo so in practice. Lie cycle analysts claim to beable to assess accurately the level o embeddedcarbon within a given product, but suchassessments are limited by time, labour, andscientic constraints. We are currently unable tohold the existing carbon standards and labels upto the ‘ideal’ design and impact characteristicsabove. Tese are still evolving and best practicesare being ormulated.

In light o this, the expected uture deve-

lopment is a push towards conspicuous con-sumer-acing labels. Here are some o themore prominent examples:

1. BsI PAs 2050

British Standards Institute’s PAS 2050 (Publically Available Specication) is a set o guidelines oran appropriate level o analysis o a CO2 liecycleassessment. While produced by the British

Standards Institute (BSI), it is not a legally binding British or European standard. PAS2050 is intended as either a business-to-business(B2B) standard or a business-to-consumer (B2C)standard and it is the methodology used by the Carbon Label Company (see below). Tisdenes whether the standard is “cradle-to-gate”and thereore does not consider emissions arisingrom the use o the product. It diers rom a“cradle-to-grave” approach, which accounts oremissions rom use and disposal.

By complying with the specication o arespected standard institute, a rm increases thecondence its customers have that the assessmento embedded carbon is correct. Tis condenceis increased urther i the specication is widely used and becomes an industry standard. Likemany technologies, there may be room or only one standard in an industry; once one standardis clearly dominant, competing standards may

all into disuse. Currently, PAS 2050 lls thisrole and it is championed by those stakeholdersinvolved in its development.

3.3 exampl Carb sadard

Large retailers announce grand plans to identiy car-bon throughout their stores but are sluggish to deliver.Consumers, when surveyed,say they shop to reduce car-

bon, but oten ail to do soin practice. Lie cycle ana-lysts claim to be able toassess accurately the level o embedded carbon within a given product, but such assessments are limited by time, labour, and scientic constraints.

to have sufcient power to punishoenders in order to ensure thatcompliance with the standard is knownto be more rewarding than cheating.

• Include better market choices for allsupply chain participants.

• Reward rms appropriately throughcompetition. A carbon standard wouldallow consumers and intermediate pro-cessors to include embedded carbon asone o the variables by which they makemarket choices. Tis allows producersand rms in the supply chain to competeon the basis o embedded carbon. In the

event that consumers are prepared to

pay a premium or products with low embedded carbon, this should rewardrms who lower their carbon emissions.

• Reducing emissions rids the market

o the worst oenders and identieshotspots where change can be made.

• Raiseawarenessofthecostofcarbonwithconsumers. By attaching a premium,

we implicitly value carbon, and sinceagricultural products are consumed ona daily basis, this raises awareness o thecost o carbon with consumers. It alsohas the potential to key into carbonmarkets, enriching them and improving

their unction.




14

ICSD - IPC

Complying with PAS 2050 would be consi-derably cheaper or rms i a large proportiono their input products are already compliant

with this specication. As such, should a rm

wish to comply with this specication, it wouldbenet rom its suppliers also being compliant.Compliance by retailers, rather than complianceby initial producers, is most likely to promote a

wide uptake o the standard.

PAS 2050 includes guidance on a number o areas o carbon accounting including:

• ecoecientsthatshouldbeusedfor

comparing one GHG against anotherby converting all emissions into CO2equivalent units (CO2e).

• e proportion of embedded carbonthat should be covered in the assessment(at least 95 percent).

• Howcarbonfrombiogenic(non-fossil)sources should be treated. Emissionsrom biogenic carbon sources (biouels)are excluded; however, the embeddedcarbon (ossil uel input or example) is

included.• Howlandusechangeshouldbetreated.

Carbon released is assigned to the rm’sproduction over the next 20 years andrequires a ‘worst case scenario’ to be usedi land use changes are not known.

• Soilcarbonchangeiscurrentlyexcludedrom the specication but may beincluded in uture revisions.

• GHG emissions from storage of aproduct should be included.

• Osettingmaynotbeusedtoaltertheembedded carbon o a product.

PAS 2050 is very specic about what should andshould not be included in a lie-cycle assessment.It tends to exclude emissions that would betoo technically difcult to assess – or example,soil carbon and capital goods – but notes thatthese may be included in uture revisions o the standard. Tis will prevent companiesrom lowering their published carbon ootprintthrough some existing mechanism. For example,

companies cannot reduce embedded emissionsrom energy by paying a renewable energy ee orgrid-sourced energy, nor may they oset carbonemissions. Tis means that lowering reportedembedded carbon will mean changing practices

within the boundary o the rm itsel, rather thanby paying or them to be changed elsewhere.

2. Carb Rduci Labl, UK

Te Carbon Label Company was set up by the

Carbon rust in 2007 to run the Carbon rust’sproduct standard. Tis standard is intended tounction both as a business-to-business (B2B)and business-to-customer (B2C) standard. Tecompany aims to measure, certiy, reduce andcommunicate the lie cycle green house gasemissions o their products.

Te company uses a standard carbon label:

Figur 3. Carb tru Labl




15

ICSD - IPC

Tis details the quantity o embedded CO2ein the product, as well as a unctional unit,like, or example “per serving” or ood, or “per

wash” or cleaners. Te methodology used to

calculate this carbon is PAS 2050 (see above). Inaddition to calculating embedded carbon usinga standard methodology, rms who wish to usethe Carbon rust’s standard must commit toreducing the ootprint o the product over thetwo years ollowing certication, or they willrisk losing the right to use the label.

Firms and products using this standardinclude:

• Walkers(crisps);

• Innocent(fruitandvegetablesmoothies);• Cadbury(chocolate);• Halifax(websaveraccount);• Marshalls,pavingproducts(2500pro-

ducts); and• Tesco’sownbrand rangeof biological

laundry detergent, orange juice, lightbulbs, and potatoes.

Te results were communicated to consumersin a variety o ways, or instance through acarbon ootprint label on packets o WalkersCrisps or online as in the case o Innocent,

which inormed consumers that one 250ml

Innocent Smoothie equals 8 percent o yourdaily CO2 rom ood and drink.

Source: Innocent, http://www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/us/ethics/resource_efcient/a_CO2_allowance/

Figur 4. T Ic smhi Labl

3. tc, UK

esco is the market leader in the UK grocery sector with a one-third market share and itsown PVS, Nature’s Choice. Tis PVS is arm-based and seeks to “ensure that our top quality resh produce comes rom growers who usegood agricultural practices, operate in anenvironmentally responsible way and withproper regard or the health and well being o theirsta.”30 It does not include carbon assessments.

In January 2007, it announced a plan to measure

the carbon in all the product lines sold throughits stores.31 In his speech, CEO erry Leahy said“I am determined that esco should be a leader

in helping to create a low-carbon economy …[but] I do not underestimate the task.”32

esco was part o the initial trial o the CarbonLabel Company’s standard and included ourtypes o product: potatoes, light bulbs, detergent,and orange juice. Since then, it has expandedthe range o products that are included underthis labelling system to 100 products.

Its carbon indicators are regularly published33 showing the carbon ootprint per unctional unitin grams, as well as estimates or the distribution

o these carbon emissions at key nodes along thesupply chain – production, distribution, retailstore, consumer use, and waste management.




16

ICSD - IPC

Cagry adPrduc

Carb

Fpri (C02

gram/ ui)

Carb Fpri Brk Dw i Licyclsag (%)

Prduci Diribui sr Ued

Li WaMaagm

esco NonBiological Liquid

Wash Detergent

700g per wash

17% 0.2% 1% 73% 9%

esco 100% PureSqueezed Orange

Juice

360g per250ml

91% 1% 7% 0.3% 1%

60W Pearl Lightbulb

34kg per1000 hrs o

use1% <0.1% <0.1% 99% <0.1%

King Edwardspotatoes (2.5 kg)

160g per250g serving

33% 1% 3% 56% 7%

Source: esco, 2009.

Tere are strong commonalities amongproduct categories or carbon emissions anddistribution along the supply chain. Tisprovides opportunities to create commoncarbon emissions ratings or product categories

with ar ewer variables. For potatoes, these

variables appear to have higher emissionsor the production or the organic productand lower in consumer use. Tese initialndings are being built upon, but harbour thepossibility or entire store coverage in the nextve years.

tabl 1. eima Carb emii Diribui alg h supply Chai, r Fur Prducld by tc, 2009




17

ICSD - IPC

tabl 2. eima Carb emii Diribui alg h supply Chai, r Fur typ Pa ld By tc, 2009

Cagry adPrduc

Carb

Fpri (C02

gram/ ui)

Carb Fpri brk dw i Licyclsag (%)

Prduci Diribui sr Ued

Li WaMaagm

King Edwards(2.5 kg)

160g per250g

serving33% 1% 3% 56% 7%

Anglian New (2.5 kg)

140g per

250gserving

34% 1% 3% 58% 4%

Organic New (1.5 kg)

160g per250g

serving40% 1% 4% 51% 4%

Organic Baby New (750 g)

140g per250g

serving48% 1% 5% 41% 4%

Source: esco (2009). Our carbon label ndings.http://www.tesco.com/assets/greenerliving/content/documents/pds/carbon_label_ndings.pd

4. Climatp, swizrlad

Climatop is a Swiss not-or-prot organisationounded in late 2008.34 Te Approved Climaoplabel is awarded to products that have signicantly (20 %+) lower embedded GHG emissions thancomparable products. Tese products are reerredto as “carbon champions” within their productgroup.35 As such, it is a business-to-consumerstandard. Comparisons between products areconducted with lie cycle assessments (LCAs)using the Ecoinvent standard database36 and

checked by an independent reviewer. Oncecertied, a product may use the label or twoyears; ater this point, it requires recertication.

In addition to having signicantly lower embed-ded carbon, a product must also meet additionalsocial and ethical standards o production.Currently there are a limited number o certiedproducts (16 lines), o which only our are ooditems. Te majority o certied products areproduced or and sold by a single large retailer(Migros).

Figur 5. Climap Labl




18

ICSD - IPC

Figur 6. Rul rm h LCA Fiv Aparagu Prduc a Migr, 2008-9

Source: Climaop (2009).

Tis analysis concluded that transportation by air was a signicant contributor to carbon emissions.However, there remains some dispute with the peerreview or this product category; the majority o

this asparagus was being imported on scheduledtourist and business ights. As such, carbonemissions attributable to it could be considerably lower. However, in most assortment areas, thereare no signicant product dierences with regardsto impact on the climate. For instance, among theapple juice products, they were unable to selectany carbon champions.37 Yet, the plan remains toexpand the number o product categories and inturn climate labels.

5. Cai, Frac

Te French supermarket chain Casino haslaunched a carbon labelling initiative on a selec-

tion o its private label products.38 Te labels, which the retailer aimed to have on 3,000 o itsproducts by the end o 2008, show the carbonemissions related to a product’s production andsupply chain. Te trial will show an on-pack trafc light carbon label, which highlights

whether a product has a high (red), medium(amber), or low (green) carbon impact in termso waste, packaging, and transport, covering 32products as o September 2009.




19

ICSD - IPC

Figur 7. Carb Am Pack eigh Vailla Yghur by Cai, 2008

Source: Casino.39

6. Wal-Mar, UsA

In July 2009, Walmart announced the creation

o its Sustainability Index initiative,40 meant tomeasure the sustainability o its products in ourareas: energy and climate, natural resources,material efciency, and people and community.

Te initiative is broken into three phases:

1. Supplier assessment. A survey o thecompany’s 100,000 global suppliers

with 15 questions41 will commence with Walmart’s “top-tier suppliers” in theUnited States completing the survey by 1 October 2009. imelines or theremaining suppliers have not beenannounced.

2. Creation o a lie cycle analysis databaseby a consortium o universities that will

work with suppliers, retailers, government

and nonprots.

3. Delivering the inormation to theconsumer on how products rank, possibly through a numeric score, colour code, orother label.

7. Air Frighd Labl, UK

In 2007, esco and Marks and Spencer commit-ted to labelling all single-ingredient resh pro-duce that was transported by air to the UK.Labels displaying ‘black airplanes’ appeared onall resh chilled produce. Tis was launched by esco in February 2007.

Figur 8. Air Frighd Labl Ud by tc ad Mark ad spcr




20

ICSD - IPC

Consumers, however, ailed to react to these labelsin the expected negative way. Sales are reportednot to have dipped. Consumers reported a variety o responses, including actively seeking these

labels assuming it meant “reshness” and owingto the provenance o the produce rom Arica ordeveloping countries. Tese labels are still beingused in several supermarkets, but or inormationpurposes now, rather than as a prominent signaldemanding the consumer make a choice. Tese

labels are, however, seen as pre-cursors or latercarbon labelling initiatives.

8. ohr iclud:

A. Bilan CO2 Leclerc, France: Tis recentstart-up aims to provide inormation ona range o ood products on kilograms o CO2 per kilogram o ood, in the same

way that ood prices are displayed.

Figur 9. A exampl h Bila Co2 Lclrc Labl r Imprd Gr Ba

Source: http://www.jeconomisemaplanete.r/

B. Cool label, Korea

Figur 10. CL Labl, Kra

Source: Kim (2008).

C. Climate Marking, Sweden42

D. Climate Conscious Label, USA 43

E. Climate Declaration, Sweden (6 products)

F. Carbon Counted Carbon Label, Canada,

Many o these are edgling, but all are expectedto grow, and it is expected that other new entrants to join.




21

ICSD - IPC

As mentioned in the beginning o this section,this increase in demand or carbon standards

stems primarily rom the ear that producersin developed countries will simply outsourcetheir production to developing countries whoare not burdened with emission caps. Tere isoten the assumption that ood and agriculturegoods that are imported will automatically have a higher carbon ootprint due to highertransport emissions. Tis assumption can oten

be inaccurate, however, asdeveloping countries typi-

cally rely on less carbonintensive methods o agri-culture, or example by using less ertiliser, mecha-nisation, and energy orheating. o calculate thetrue carbon cost o a good,

those setting standards might rely on ‘Lie Cycle Analysis’ to gain a more exact measurement.

Lie Cycle Analysis (LCA)

aims to evaluate the con-tribution on impact cate-gories such as global war-ming, acidication, etc. romthe ull industrial processeso producing a good. It seeksto compare the ull range o environmental and social

damages assignable to products and services inorder to be able to choose the least burdensomeone. A Lie Cycle Impact Assessment can alsobe used or assessing hotspots and iden-tiyinginefciencies within supply chains and thenmaking suggestions or improvements.

Yet, while it can accurately measure impactso a supply chain, it does not extend to thecommercial elements o supply chains, suchas dividing the energy consumed in producingand maintaining a truck among its lietime o loads hauled. As a consequence, LCA is oten

criticised owing to the choice o boundaries, which aect the guidance an LCA can provide.

For supermarkets, this limitation is key, asthe inclusion o an indicator o emissions

incurred during distribution rom arm tostore (included above by esco) is raught

with calculation issues (e.g., how to accountor airreight in the underbelly o a touristaircrat without double-counting).

One advance might be economic input-output lie cycle assessment (EIO-LCA),

which seeks to incorporate ully commercialand technical aspects o cradle-to-grave

(non-wasteul) supply chain systems. Tesemust, however, rely on available data and arecurrently dependent on sector averages or itsoundation.

Developing countries lack the skills andinstitutions to deal eectively with demandso LCA. Industry participants in developingcountries are rarely actively involved instandards setting. It is clear that science anddecision-making would certainly benet rom

a more orensic approach to carbon, but untilbetter data is available or all countries andprocesses in ways that do not exclude thosesmaller armers with lower abilities to pay orsuch calculations, we remain dependent onavailable statistics and generalised inerences.

One o the rst LCA conducted comparedthe production o green beans in sub-Saharan

Arican production with that in the UK. 44 Teanalysis ound strikingly similar energy useduring the production process. As such, thereare available resources to help crat emergingcarbon standards in the measuring and in theprocess o identiying supply chain hotspots.For instance, the LCA within the EcoInventStandard or agriculture covers seed growing,cultivation, harvesting o basic agriculturalcommodities, and dierentiates between orga-nic, integrated, extensive, and intensive pro-duction.45 But thorny calculation issues pre-

vail, such as dealing with land-use change andthe use o secondary standardised data.46

3.4 Calculaig Carb: Li Cycl Aalyi

To calculate the true

carbon cost o a good,those setting standards might rely on ‘Lie Cycle Analysis’ to gain a more exact measurement.

Lie Cycle Analysis (LCA)aims to evaluate the contribution on impact categories such as global warming, acidication,etc. rom the ull in-dustrial processes o pro-ducing a good.




22

ICSD - IPC

International trade is another area where LCA shows its limitations. For example, an estimated75 percent o resh produce own rom East

Arica to consumers in the UK travels in the

spare capacity (or bellyhold) o tourist andbusiness ights. Te attribution o carbonemissions associated with this ight is a complexcalculation. Attribution among passengers andcargo could be dened by the relative weightsin tonnes, the relative prices paid, or therelative space taken up. Each element wouldattribute carbon dierently. Add into this the

complexities o including aviation emissionsacross the 30-year liespan o each plane, theeconomics o the aviation industry’s landing-slots, and aviation emissions currently omitted

rom the Kyoto Protocol. Research into aninternational levy on tourism or adaptationto climate change has shown the easibility o economic incentive mechanisms in raisingcarbon efciencies (Chambwera, 2008), butincorporating the equity issue remains beyondthe capacity o existing LCA architecture(Chambwera and MacGregor, 2008)47.

Development. Te idea o creating a ‘develop-ment-based standard’ has been mooted many times in discussions between retailers and NGOs.

While there is certainly value in examining thepoint o potential dierences in products with adevelopment story attached, the ability to crata standard or a label has thus ar proven elusive.It is clear that it would be difcult to ensure thatthere are genuine benets and that any solutionpromotes upgraded benets to producers in

developing countries. Given that many small-scale armers operate in the inormal sector inrural parts o developing countries where thereis little inormation available at a national levelon livelihoods, the building blocks or a standard

will need to be imported. It is expected that inthe years ahead, however, there will likely be a re-ocus on agricultural development in developingcountries, as both a mitigation and adaptationissue. It is uncertain as to when a legitimatedevelopment standard will be crated and, alsoimportantly, whether this would promote orhinder trade.

Tere is increasing interest in olding indicatorson carbon and development into a meta-standard or sustainable development (the so-called ‘carbon plus’ standards). Te difculties,however, in measuring and trading o amongthe environmental ootprint and the socialhandprints associated with the ood system and

specic supply chains, render this scientically unlikely.

Biofuels . Agriculture also has the potential tobe part o various mitigation strategies. Teseinclude the growing o “energy crops” that canbe processed into uel substitutes (biouels)or burnt to provide heating (biomass). Tesecrops take up the carbon they release uponcombustion as they grow, and, as such, can beconsidered a short-cycle carbon crop. Whileit is oten claimed that such uels are carbonneutral, in reality they have other energy inputs

during production rom ossil uels, as wellhaving indirect land-use implications, such asdisplacing ood crops onto orest land. Tismeans that the net embedded carbon in somebiouels may be positive rather than neutral. It ispossible that the total embedded carbon withina biouel product is greater than an equivalentossil uel hydrocarbon. I this is the case, thereis no climate change mitigation justication orthe uel.

Standards applied to agricultural productsexist not only or ood products. A taskorcehas been coordinated by the InternationalBiouels Forum to look into the practicalitieso producing International Biouels Standards.Tis is primarily due to dierences in thechemical makeup o biouels in the threeleading members o the Forum (US, EU, andBrazil), rather than an environmental ocus. Allthree are producing biouel products but these

are not always compatible with the prevailingtechnologies (engine congurations) in the

3.5 ohr emrgig sadard




23

ICSD - IPC

other countries. Te aim o this standard is toacilitate trade in biouels outside o the homemarkets o the Forum’s members.

As noted above, it is possible or biouels to havea greater embedded carbon than the ossil uelequivalent that they look to replace. Te WhitePaper on Internationally Compatible BiouelStandards interestingly does not mention climatechange in its 94 pages. A standard or measuringthe embedded carbon within dierent biouelproducts would be a useul addition to betterallow the assessment o green credentials o eachproduct as well.

International carbon standards and trading.Recently, climate negotiators have placed arenewed ocus on the impact o climate change indeveloping countries. Tis is drawing attentionto production emissions and mitigation potentialand could in the uture include a ocus onsoil carbon and the land-use practices thatdetermine carbon content o soils (the potentialo carbon storage in soil is now given moreattention in international discussions). Soil

locks carbon in its structure because carbon isa signicant component (57 percent by weight)

o organic soil matter. Tis carbon is releasedby microbial activity in the soil but is rereshedby plant matter decomposing into the soil. Tespeed at which carbon is accumulated and loss

rom the soil determines the stock level o carbonat any time. Tese ows are aected by many actors, including water regime and armingpractices e.g. tilling soil exposes it to air andincreases microbial activity, which breaks downthe solid organic carbon into carbon dioxidemore rapidly, thereby reducing the stock level o carbon. Considerable amounts o agriculturalland in the world have been tilled and thereorehave lower levels o stock carbon than they could

have. I methods are employed to reduce the rateat which these degraded soils lose carbon, they have the potential to act as a carbon sink as soilsadjust to higher stock levels o carbon. Te roleo carbon standards in the uture is unclear.

Whether carbon standards should or could bedeemed an accep-table tool to pro-vide incentives orlanduse change indeveloping coun-

tries is an impor-tant question.

Whether carbon stan-dards should or could be deemed an acceptable tool to provide incentives or land-use change in

developing countries is an important question.

Tere is concern over how climate changeissues could interere with trade by avouringcertain processes or countries. A clause in theUS Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the US House o Representatives included

wording that – i the bill were made law – would allow the president to impose a carbontari on imported products ater 2012 i industrial carbon emissions rom the country o export are higher than those in the US.Tis hints at the potential to use carbon as atrade tool.

In the ood industry, the private sector has a track record o being ahead o the public sector intaking action over issues o public concern. Forthis reason, trends in carbon labelling are likely tobe led by the private sector. For carbon, labels andstandards are an increasingly conspicuous exampleo a PVS. Tese carbon standards build upon bestpractice in PVS but crucially extend the conceptto consumers through labels, and as such, areextensions o PVS. Any such extension can resultin trade issues and deserves to be monitored oruse as a non-tari barrier.

3.6 Pial r Carb sadard Impac trad




24

ICSD - IPC

1. Carb pri ca play a rl irducig carb dixid mii i h

d ym. Whhr hi i a prblmr dvlpig cury xpr i uclar.

Tis issue revolves around whether publicstandards are developed in ways that promotesustainable development or ease o measurementor maximises some other benet.

I private standards are developed in industriesand supply chains already promote sustainable

development, then environmental benets arenot raised while costs increase or exporters.

2. Clariy h rl priva adard adpublic lgilai i addrig carbccr i h d ym.

Both private and public policies currently inuence trade and will be integral to achievingtrade in the uture that supports global low-carbon growth. Leadership on the carbon issue

is unclear, though, with a mix o initiativescurrently addressing dierent elements o theissue. We eel carbon agreements and standardsharbour the opportunity to be leveragedor genuine progress on the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, poverty alleviation, tech-nology transer, equity, and sustainabledevelopment.

Currently, private standards play an importantrole in optimizing supply chains in the oodsystem. Can these PVS be extended to deal witha global public bad, such as climate change? Itis clear that carbon could be reduced in somesupply chains and could even be optimised,

with a serious upheaval in our existing oodsystem. But there are concerns over the cost it

would have on consumer choices, sustainabledevelopment, and the efciency and integrity o the ood system.

Privatisation o public legislation needs tobe recognised. In ood, the private sector is

oten made responsible or implementingpublic legislation. It is crucial that a better

understanding o the operations o the privateood and agriculture sectors is achieved in orderto better design public policy and to ensurethat trading rules are not adversely interered

with. o achieve this, the interaction betweenpublic and private legislation needs to be moreclearly understood.

3. PVs xpric i dvlpig xpr hriculur d b lard ad

ulimaly h udrlyig priciplcald up widly.

For developing countries, there is a small window o opportunity to ensure that carboncan be appropriately controlled in ways thatdo not limit (and even stimulate) economicgrowth in those nations. Tis window existsbecause o the ongoing evolution o PVS inood and the looming discussions on global andnational legislation over carbon emissions.

In our increasingly globalised world, weexpect global trade to accelerate, particularly as global solutions are being ound collectively or climate and poverty alleviation. Tis

would deepen the potential impact o introducing new standards. Tese voluntary standards, as well as the ones enorced undertrade agreement’s legislation, should also beormulated to maximise positive spilloversinto other industries.

Lessons can be learned rom the evolution o carbon-concerned PVS rom ood to otherproducts, though ood is a standard bearer intrade rom developing countries to developed.Te methods that proved most successul inpilot schemes should be replicated and previousmistakes should be avoided. I the evolutiono carbon as a public and private standard isnot managed appropriately, the cascade into

other supply chains and industrial sectors isexpected.

4. KeY ConCLUsIons AnD PoLICY ReCoMMenDAtIons




25

ICSD - IPC

4. Aalyi carb mii prvid a l aaly h widr iu afcig uaiabl dvlpm i agriculuralcr i dvlpig curi.

When setting public standards, governmentsand bilateral or multilateral trade agreementsshould aim to identiy what developingcountries’ agricultural sectors really need toachieve low-carbon growth nationally and tocontribute to global targets. Tere is widespreadrecognition o the potential or low-carbonagriculture export-led growth. However,developing countries need help in this regard

to ensure positive uptake o any measure inthe agricultural sector. Te wider sector needstranser o productive skills, good agriculturalpractices, and marketing skills. It is clear thatPVS and even Carbon+ standards can deliveror some stakeholders. In addition, on the low-carbon growth side, there is a need or accessto locally adapted appropriate technologies.Moreover, in the uture, agriculture is likely to be central to the climate agenda withexpected global progress on mechanisms and

principles over REDD (Reducing Emissionsrom Deorestation and Forest Degradation inDeveloping Countries), soil carbon, agriculture,and development linkages.

Designing compliance criteria that are notnancially burdensome or developingcountries, thereby limiting market access, isa crucial part o a successul trade agreement.Existing compliance systems should be used tokeep the cost and administration burden low.Support will be needed to ensure less asset-rich industry participants are not excluded.Evidence rom other PVS illustrates thisprinciple. As the International Institute orEnvironment and Development (IIED) and theNatural Resources Institute (NRI) argue, “it issignicant that small-scale armers who are not

well supported by their exporter struggled withGLOBALGAP, and evidence rom Kenya hasshown that they either ail to certiy or drop

out o the compliance system within one totwo years o rst being certied” (2009:69).

Te limitations to public trade rules enorcedby these agreements in dening market accessor developing nations should be recognisedhowever. Private and public sector roles,

particularly around ood, must be understood,re-assessed, and/or integrated. Protectionismpotential (e.g. US and low-carbon growth) mustalso be viewed through a global equity lens,accounting or the cost and benet implicationsto every country and not just the individualrules or targets examined.

5. Cumr-acig carb labl ad car-b PVs ca limi mii fc-

ivly wihu apprprialy pricd vi-rmal xralii.

Consumer reaction to labels in general is low and we expect this to be the case or carbon labels as well. Indeed, the case o consumers viewing ‘airreight’ labels as indicating reshness is a goodexample o how messages are interpreted by consumers in unexpected ways. In order to bea more eective vehicle or limiting emissionsthrough consumption choices, carbon labels

will require more adequate governance overcarbon dioxide emissions. Here, or instance,the true pricing o externalities through, say, aglobal carbon market would be one additionalgovernance element that would promote thesignicance o a carbon label on ood products.Food is about ar more than consumptionchoices and the transportation taken to buy ood is a signicant carbon issue that remainsun-captured in labels.

6. T pial r priva cr buyr ii cracual rduci icarb r a prduc harbur h gra pial r acual carb rduci ih d ym.

Te enabling system that would need to be inplace or this to occur would include a carbonprice embedded in global supply chains. Car-bon dioxide emissions would also need to be

measurable, and as we have pointed out, currently,there is not a universally trusted methodology.




26

ICSD - IPC

notes

1 For reviews o the dierent schemes, see Bolwig and Gibbon, 2009; Brenton, Edwards-Jonesand Jensen, 2008.

2 It is noted here the public orums used by GLOBALGAP in 2007 might provide an exampleo a trend to more inclusive decision-making by standards setters.

3 It is noted here the public orums used by GLOBALGAP in 2007 might provide an exampleo a trend to more inclusive decision-making by standards setters.

4 MacGregor et al, 2009.

5 See example o an outgrower system developed by Homegrown in Kenya. Graham et al

2007.

6 For example, green beans are produced in the UK during May to October, Kenya duringSeptember to January, and Egypt during January to April.

7 Such as GLOBALGAP or Field-to-Fork or Nature’s Choice.

8 Such as Rainorest Alliance or Fairtrade.

9 In 2009, esco took its Nature’s Choice retailer-specic PVS and bolted-on a consumer-acing ront-end, called Nurture. In 2007, Marks and Spencer built its consumer-acing Plan

A around its retailer-specic PVS, Field-to-Fork.

10 Such as GLOBALGAP.

11 Such as Marks and Spencer’s Field-to-Fork or esco’s Nature’s Choice.

12 Borot et al 2009.

13 Homer, 2009a.

14 Borot et al, 2009.

15 IGD consumer research in Garcia Martinez and Poole, 2009:18.

16 Ofcial Journal o the European Communities, 2002: 11.

17 GlobalGAP, 2007:8.

18 Garcia Martinez and Poole, 2009.

19 Bell et al, 2007.

20 Garcia and Martinez, 2009.




27

ICSD - IPC

21 Graham et al, 2009:24.

22 http://orum.globalgap.org/.

23 Borot et al, 2009.

24 Blackmore and MacGregor, 2009.


26 Helm et al, 2007.

27 http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/08/21/japanese-govt-launching-carbon-labeling-program/.

http://www.weorum.org/en/media/Latest%20Press%20Releases/PR_26jan_Japan.

28 http://ec.europa.eu/news/environment/080716_2_en.htm.

29 MacKerron et al, 2009.

30 http://www.tescoarming.com/tnc.asp.

31 Garside et al, 2007.

32 Leahy, 2007.

33 esco, 2009.

34 http://www.climatop.ch/.

35 Diethelm, 2009.

36 See http://www.ecoinvent.org/.

37 Diethelm, 2009. Labelling top runner products: Experience at Migros. Presentation at‘Communicating the carbon impact o products to customers’, at the First PCF Word Summit2009, Berlin, 26-27 February.

38 http://www.oodproductiondaily.com/Supply-Chain/French-retailer-in-green-labelling-initiative.

39 http://www.produits-casino.r/spip.php?page=indice-carbone&id_article=1005&code_bdq=109.

40 See http://greenbiz.com/view-term/all/Sustainability%20Index.

41 See WalMart, 2009a. Sustainability Product Index: 15 Questions or Suppliers. WalMartStores.com. 1pp. http://walmartstores.com/download/3863.pd.




28

ICSD - IPC

42 http://www.krav.se/sv/Klimat.

43 http://www.climateconservancy.org/.

44 Jones, 2007 – this is resh insights no. 3?

45 http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainohub/database2.vm?dbid=119.

46 Kasterine and Vanzetti, 2009.





29

ICSD - IPC

ReFeRenCes

Aksoy, M.A. and Beghin, J.C. (eds) (2005). Global agricultural trade and developing countries. Washington DC: Te World Bank.

Blackmore, E. and MacGregor, J. (2009). How standards can lead to the development o new agribusiness models or horticultural products. In D. Mithöer and H. Waibel Socio-economic research in vegetable production and marketing in Africa. CABI, In press.

Bolwig, S. and Gibbon, P. (2009). Overview o product carbon ootprinting schemes and standards.Paris, OECD.

Borot, A., MacGregor, J. and Graham, A. (eds) (2009). Standard bearers: horticultural exports and private standards in Africa. International Institute or Envrionment and Development, 176pp.

http://www.iied.org.

Brenton, P., Edwards-Jones, G. and Friis Jensen, M. (2009). Carbon Labelling and Low-incomeCountry Exports: A Review o the Development Issues. Development Policy Review 27(3),Overseas Development Institute, UK, p243-67.

Diop, N. and Jaee, S. (2005). Fruits and Vegetables: Global rade and Competition in Fresh andProcessed Product Markets. In Aksoy and Beghin (2005).

Edwards-Jones,G., Plassmann, K., York, R.H, Hounsome, B., Jones, D.B, and L. Milà i Canals(2009). Vulnerability o exporting nations to the development o a carbon label in the United

Kingdom Environmental Science & Policy 12(4), Pages 479-490.

Forum or the Future (2008). Check out Carbon. Forum For the Future, London, UK. 21pp.

Garcia Martinez, M. and Poole, N. (2009). Ethical consumerism: development o a global trendand its impact on development. . In Borot et al 2009.

Graham, A., Cooper, J. Wainwright, H. and MacGregor, J. (2009). An exploration o armers’decision-making and reasons or participation in and subsequent withdrawal romGLOBALGAP. In Borot et al 2009.

Helm, D., Smale, R. and J. Phillips (2007). oo Good to be rue: Te UK’s Climate ChangeRecord. Unpublished paper, Dieterhelm.co.uk , 29pp.

Homer, S. (2009a). Standards and the ood system. Presentation at UNIDO/IDS Meeting, 18September, Institute or Development Studies, University o Sussex, UK.

Homer, S. (2009b). In Borot et al 2009.

Homer, S. and MacGregor, J. (2009). Fairer ood miles. Presentation at UNIDO/IDS Meeting, 18September, Institute or Development Studies, University o Sussex, UK.




30

ICSD - IPC

Kim, I. (2008). Carbon ootprint label activities in Korea. Korea Eco-Product Institute,http://www.greengrowth.org/download/2008/singg_cebu/Session%207/%5B7-3%5DCarbon_label_activities_UNESCAP_Kim%20IK%5B7%5D.pd.

Leahy, . (2007). esco, Carbon and the Consumer. Presentation at ‘Carbon and the consumer’,Forum or the Future and esco, London, 18 January. http://www.tesco.com/climatechange/speech.asp.

MacGregor, J, and M. Chambwera (2007). Room to move: ecological space and emissions equity.Sustainable development: opinion. International Institute or Environment and Development,London, UK.

MacGregor, J. (2009a). Understanding stakeholder drivers or introducing and complying withPVS - a resh produce example. In Borot et al 2009.

MacKerron, G, Egerton, C, Gaskell C, Parpia A, and Mourato, S. (2009). Willingness to pay or carbon oset certication and co-benets among (high-)ying young adults in the UK,Energy Policy 37(4), p1372-1381.

MacGregor, J. (2009b). In Borot et al 2009.

Martino, D., and P. Smith, (2009). IPCC 4th Assessment Report, Agriculture, http://www.ipcc.ch/pd/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter8.pd.

esco (2009). Our carbon label ndings. http://www.tesco.com/assets/greenerliving/content/

documents/pds/carbon_label_ndings.pd.

Waye, V. (2006). Carbon ootprints, ood miles and the Australian wine industry. Melbourne Journal of International Law 9(1), p. 271.

Weinberger, K. and Lumpkin, . (2005). Horticulture or Poverty Alleviation: Te UnundedRevolution. AVRDC Working Paper No 15, Te World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, aiwan.



About the Platform

In 2008 the International Food & Agricultural rade Policy Council (IPC) and the International Centre or rade and SustainableDevelopment (ICSD) launched Te ICSD-IPC Platorm on Climate Change, Agriculture and rade. Tis interdisciplinary platorm o climate change, agricultural and trade experts seeks to promote increased policy coherence to ensure efective climatechange mitigation and adaptation, ood security and a more open and equitable global ood system. Publications include:

• InternationalClimateChangeNegotiationsandAgriculture.PolicyBriefNo.1,May2009

• GreenhouseGasReductionPoliciesandAgriculture:ImplicationsforProductionIncentivesandInternationalTradeDisciplines. IssueBriefNo.1,byD.BlandfordandT.Josling,August2009

• ClimateChangeandDevelopingCountryAgriculture:AnOverviewofExpectedImpacts,AdaptationandMitigationChallengesandFundingRequirements.IssueBriefNo.2byJ.Keane,S.Page,A.Kergna,andJ.Kennan,December2009

• CarbonConcerns:HowStandardsandLabellingInitiativesMustnotLimitAgriculturalTradeFromDevelopingCountries. IssueBriefNo.3,byJ.MacGregor,May2010

• eRoleofInternationalTradeinClimateChangeAdaptation. IssueBriefNo.4,byG.Nelson,A.Palazzo,C.Ringler,T.Susler,andM.Batka,December2009

• ClimateChangeandChina’sAgriculturalSector:AnOverviewofImpacts,AdaptationandMitigation.

IssueBriefNo.5byJ.Wang,J.Huang,andS.Rozelle,May2010

• AgriculturalTechnologiesforClimateChangeMitigationandAdaptationinDevelopingCountries:PolicyOptionsforInnovationandTechnologyDiusion.IssueBriefNo.6byT.LybbertandD.Sumner,May2010

About the Organizations

Te International Centre for rade and Sustainable Development wasestablishedinGenevainSeptember1996tocontributeto a better understanding o development and environment concerns in the context o international trade. As an independent non-protandnon-governmentalorganization,ICTSDengagesabroadrangeofactorsinongoingdialogueabouttradeandsustainabledevelopment.With awide networkof governmental,non-governmental andinter-governmental partners,ICTSDplaysa uniquesystemic role as a provider o original, non-partisan reporting and acilitation services at the intersection o international trade andsustainabledevelopment.Moreinformationisavailableatwww.ictsd.org.

Documents

Carbon Concerns How Standards and Labelling Initiatives Must Not Limit Agricultural Trade From Developing Countries