Measuring Carbon Footprints of Agri‑Food Products

12. Conclusion

Abstract

This chapter brings together the findings from earlier chapters on the eight building blocks and draws out the implications for policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders.

Making carbon footprints visible all along the food supply chain could be a powerful tool in reducing emissions. In line with initiatives in other industries this report has explored the potential for a “cradle to gate” approach where each firm along the supply chain receives carbon footprint information from suppliers, adds an estimate of its own emissions, allocates the total across its products, and shares the resulting carbon footprint with its customers. This approach would decentralise the calculation of product carbon footprints, and allow each firm or farm to focus on quantifying its own emissions.

Within this setup, the report identified eight building blocks for achieving reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems. They are:

• Reporting standards and guidelines for carbon footprint measurement, to create a shared understanding of what to include in carbon footprint calculations.

• Science-based methods for measuring or estimating emissions.

• Farm level calculation tools, which allow farmers to use primary data on their activities and management practices as inputs to calculate their carbon footprint.

• Databases with secondary data, to be used where primary data is not (yet) available.

• A way of communicating carbon footprint data along the supply chain, so that detailed calculations by producers at one stage of the supply chain can be used as input at the next stage.

• A way to ensure the integrity and quality of the data and calculations.

• A way to scale up carbon footprint calculations while keeping costs low, to ensure widespread adoption by actors with limited capacity, notably farmers, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and producers in developing countries.

• A way to update these elements as new scientific insights and techniques (such as farm management practices or technological options) become available.

Across the eight building blocks this report has provided a first assessment of what is available, what would need to be added, and what would need to be modified to achieve reliable and widespread product carbon footprints on a cradle-to-gate basis. Table 12.1 summarises the findings by building block.

Table 12.1. Building blocks: A first assessment

Building block	Current state	Next steps
Reporting standards and guidelines	Well-developed landscape of standards at firm and product level Additional sector and product guidance often available But some inconsistencies and ambiguities remain, and some ‘settled’ issues may need to be revisited	Continue to improve alignment of existing standards and guidelines Investigate the impact of different standards on calculated impacts Streamline treatment of CO2 emissions and removals from land management and land use change Consider including indirect land use change (ILUC) Investigate impact of different allocation rules and whether these can be streamlined Adopt clear processes for reviewing and updating standards
Science-based methods	Methods generally well-developed, with IPCC providing authoritative guidance on Tier 1 and 2 methods and some countries providing national recommendations on methods But some gaps (e.g. for developing countries and for soil organic carbon), including validation of models	Fund additional research and validation in areas with gaps, in particular in low- and middle-income countries Consider developing national guidance on most appropriate methods for farm-level emissions (cfr. United States), taking into account alignment with National Inventory methods Adopt a process for faster update of guidance documents
Farm level calculation tools	Several tools exist, but these differ in methodology, which can lead to very different answers for same farm Not all tools transparent about methods and alignment to standards	Create greater transparency on methods, assumptions, and performance, e.g. through minimum requirements and/or benchmarking exercises Ensure tools are regularly updated to reflect latest science, reporting standards, and secondary data (e.g. emission factors), while striking a balance with the need for stability Improve coverage of developing countries and of soil organic carbon as improved science-based methods become available Where necessary, adapt farm level assessment tools to perform product level assessment. Improve interoperability of tools and databases through a harmonised data format (e.g. HESTIA)
Databases with secondary data	Databases are well established and cover large number of products and geographies; databases usually consistent with key standards Databases differ in methodological choices Data gaps for some products, activities, and geographies Cost and complexity may pose a barrier to accessing and using databases	Consider harmonizing methodological guidelines to a greater extent (e.g. incorporating product category rules) or provide “pre-sets” so users can easily adjust calculations to different standards Develop a deliberate strategy to address data gaps, using data quality ratings to prioritise areas for new research
Communicating carbon footprints along the supply chain	While at an early stage, several initiatives exist to enable digital sharing of carbon footprint data along food supply chains, and technical aspects are well developed Several open regulatory and governance questions (e.g. data ownership, competition rules)	Collaborate to create compatible systems, including working with farm level calculation tools, LCA databases, and standard setters Consider adopting harmonised data format (e.g. HESTIA) as basis to create interoperability between farm-level tools, databases, and initiatives to transmit data along supply chain Create clarity on regulatory and governance issues (often cross-sectoral)
Ensuring integrity and quality of the data	There are three models of assurance (i.e. a demonstration that requirements have been fulfilled): first party (i.e. self-declared claims), second party (e.g. when buyers evaluate whether a product meets requirements), and third party (with an independent body). The most appropriate choice depends on the context; in general, third-party assurance provides more confidence but is also more expensive. Third party verification of carbon footprints is widespread However, verification does not evaluate underlying methodology, only that the methodology has been followed – i.e. no process for ensuring quality of LCA databases and farm level tools	Consider whether first-party, second-party or third-party assurance is most appropriate in a given setting. Consider third-party verification of farm level tools’ compliance with reporting standards Consider possibility of standard setters listing the tools consistent with their requirements Consider third-party verification that farm level tools follow relevant science-based methods (e.g. based on national guidance) Consider independent assessment processes for validating tools and databases most suitable for specific contexts Consider proficiency tests for farm-level tools Consider minimum quality criteria (e.g. on governance, transparency, independent scientific oversight) for farm-level tools
Scaling up while keeping costs low	Farmers, SMEs, and producers in the developing world are likely to face barriers in calculating carbon footprints Several approaches exist already, including private sector engagement with suppliers, public-private collaborations, or the provision of technical assistance	Extend or adapt existing approaches to help farmers, SMEs, and producers in developing countries overcome practical barriers in calculating carbon footprints Consider the possibility of first-party or second-party assurance for farm activity data where appropriate. Consider how governments could strengthen confidence, e.g. by operating the self-declared scheme (cfr the visualisation initiative in Japan’s MIDORI Strategy)
Updating all elements as new scientific insights and techniques become available	Currently no deliberate approach for updating various building blocks; many initiatives lack a process for updates or revisions Tension between the need for change and the need for stability	Consider adopting an explicit policy for revisions and updates (for reporting standards, overviews of science-based methods, farm-level tools, databases) Introduce clear version numbers and change logs (for reporting standards, overviews of science-based methods, farm-level tools, databases) Consider adopting harmonised data format (e.g. HESTIA) for storing historical data to facilitate updates and re-statements of historical baselines if new methods become available Across all building blocks, consider aligning on a common multi-year update cycle Across all building blocks, consider creating a multi-stakeholder forum for discussion on possible updates Across all building blocks, adopt a “continuous improvement” mindset

Note: See main text for more detailed assessments and recommendations.

What is remarkable is how many of the necessary building blocks are already in place. Some have emerged only recently, such as digital solutions to communicate carbon footprints along supply chains. Several other building blocks were historically developed with different purposes in mind, such as IPCC guidance on science-based methods (originally addressed to governments for National Inventory Reporting) or farm level calculation tools (originally developed to help farmers evaluate total on-farm emissions rather than product carbon footprints). Most building blocks have also developed independently of each other. This explains why adjustments will be needed to make all building blocks work well together.

An important question is how to avoid fragmentation and unnecessary transaction costs in the context of international trade. The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade encourages the use of common international standards, acceptance by members of conformity assessments performed by other members, and special attention to the needs of producers in developing countries; these principles are highly relevant for carbon footprints (WTO, 2022[1]). In terms of the “building blocks” framing used here, international standards would be most relevant in the context of reporting standards and guidelines, and science-based methods. More broadly, however, each building block could benefit from an international exchange of experiences and (where relevant) alignment.

The suggested next steps listed in Table 12.1 involve a wide range of actors. Some involve international civil society and potentially governments and international organisations (e.g. on reporting standards), some involve the international scientific community (e.g. IPCC guidance), some involve database and tool providers (which may be national or international, and may be private sector, non-profit, or public), some involve governments and stakeholders at the national level (e.g. public-private awareness campaigns), and so on. To avoid fragmentation and to coordinate this diverse group of actors, international organisations could play an important role as conveners. For example, as suggested in the context of mechanisms to update the building blocks, it might be useful to create multi-stakeholder forums to allow cooperation and coordination between these different communities around the shared goal of carbon footprints for food systems. The OECD could be a venue for such conversations. For example, ongoing work under the OECD Inclusive Forum for Carbon Mitigation Approaches (IFCMA) is exploring carbon footprints with a focus on emissions-intensive and trade-exposed sectors (OECD, 2024[2]) while the OECD together with the International Energy Agency is providing the interim secretariat for the Climate Club (https://climate-club.org/), an intergovernmental forum for exchange on industry decarbonisation. In 2023-2024, the OECD Food Chain Analysis Network brought together experts from diverse backgrounds to discuss carbon footprints of food systems; insights from these discussions informed the writing of this report ().

Box 12.1. The OECD Food Chain Analysis Network on carbon footprints of food systems

The OECD Food Chain Analysis Network (FCAN) is an OECD expert group specialised in food systems analysis. In previous years, the FCAN has contributed to OECD work on issues such as simplified nutrition labelling policies or food insecurity in OECD countries. FCAN experts are nominated by OECD countries. The OECD can invite other experts or stakeholders as observers. FCAN members participate in annual meetings and ad hoc virtual events (facilitated by the OECD) to share insights, data, and best practices on topical food systems issues related to ongoing OECD projects. In this way, FCAN informs the work of the OECD, while also enabling peer learning and dialogue among OECD member countries.

In 2023 and 2024, the FCAN studied initiatives to measure and communicate environmental impacts of food products. The first hybrid meeting was organised in Paris on 22-23 June 2023. Participants shared experiences on initiatives to measure and/or communicate environmental impacts, and discussed governance issues. A series of virtual workshops then looked in more detail at farm-level calculation tools, simplified environmental labelling schemes, carbon footprint standards, consumer behaviour, secondary databases, and interoperability and data sharing issues.

On 10-11 October 2024, the FCAN met again in hybrid format in Paris, this time with a focus on measuring carbon footprints in food systems. Participants included experts and delegates from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, the European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as representatives from Business at OECD, FAO, WWF, UNEP, the World Farmers Organisation, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the International Dairy Federation, the Global Roundtable on Sustainable Beef, and many initiatives and actors working on carbon footprints in food systems, including HESTIA/Oxford University, the Cool Farm Tool, and the Global Feed LCA Institute.

Discussions were structured around the eight building blocks covered in this report. Participants were asked how essential each building block is, and how likely to fail (in the absence of deliberate effort), and discussed this question through a mix of individual work, breakout sessions, interviews with experts, and plenary discussions. Figure 12.1 shows the average scores across five breakout groups. Multiplying the score for how essential a building block is, with its score for how much it is considered at risk, gives a rough prioritisation. Overall, reporting standards (Chapter 4), scaling up (Chapter 10), ensuring the integrity and quality of the data (Chapter 9), and farm level tools (Chapter 6) scored highest in terms of this combined score, although science-based methods (Chapter 5) and communicating data along the supply chain (Chapter 8) were close behind.

These scores should not be interpreted in a strict quantitative sense, as the main purpose of the exercise was to stimulate discussions among experts, but they do confirm the relevance of the building blocks covered in this report.

Figure 12.1. Expert judgment on the eight building blocks

Note: Chart shows average scores across five expert discussion groups at the OECD Food Chain Analysis Network meeting on 10-11 October 2024.

Source: OECD analysis.

Experts were also asked if they saw any additional building blocks to be added. Some major themes which emerged from these discussions were:

• The importance of harmonisation not only within specific building blocks (e.g. within reporting standards), but across the building blocks (e.g. alignment of farm-level tools and LCA databases on reporting standards). Participants expressed a clear need for greater harmonisation.

• The role of government. Several participants noted that successful initiatives often had the implicit or explicit support of government, whether as convener of stakeholders, funder of initiatives, or direct provider of tools or services.

• The importance of taking an inclusive approach, mindful of the circumstances of small producers, small and medium-sized enterprises, and producers in developing countries.

These could be seen as additional building blocks, or alternatively as ‘enablers’ which apply across the building blocks covered in this report.

While many elements are therefore in place, the magnitude of the challenges should not be downplayed: achieving reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems is an ambitious goal. A particular challenge is how to achieve comparability of carbon footprint estimates referring to very different geographies and production systems, and calculated using different methodologies. A “continuous improvement” approach is helpful here, as it acknowledges that estimates will initially come with significant error margins but that stakeholders can work together over time to reduce these uncertainties. And as noted in the introduction, investments in the building blocks would anyway generate important benefits such as improved databases and methods even if in the end the goal of reliable and widespread product carbon footprints remains out of reach.

Working towards product carbon footprints could also help with efforts to quantify other environmental impacts. For example, digital tools for exchanging carbon footprint data could easily be adjusted to communicate other environmental impacts. In other cases, building blocks for carbon footprints could inspire or inform similar work for other environmental impacts. For example, there is currently no equivalent to IPCC guidance and Tiers 1 and 2 methods for quantifying other environmental impacts, and most farm level tools quantify only GHG emissions. The concept of building blocks could therefore be a useful starting point for thinking about other environmental impacts as well.

References

[2] OECD (2024), “Towards more accurate, timely, and granular product-level carbon intensity metrics: A scoping note”, Inclusive Forum on Carbon Mitigation Approaches Papers, No. 1, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4de3422f-en.

[1] WTO (2022), What yardstick for net zero? Trade and Climate Change Information Brief n° 6, World Trade Organization, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/clim_03nov21-6_e.pdf.