Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Laura Draucker| FAO Livestock Meeting| March 28 2011
1
Experiences in Developing Standards & Tools for GHG Management
Outline
• GHG Protocol Vision & Core Mission
• GHG Protocol Standards & Tools
• Current Work
• GHG Protocol Development Process
– Standards
– Sector Guidance & Tools
• Conclusions & Opportunities
The GHG Protocol
Vision
• Enable corporate and government measurement and management practices that lead to transformative reductions in global GHG emissions
The GHG Protocol
Core Mission
• Develop international carbon management standards and tools and promote their broad adoption worldwide
The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and Tools
Stationary combustionPurchased electricity
Transport/mobile sourcesCombined Heat & Power
AluminumAmmoniaCement
Iron and SteelLime
Pulp and Paper Refrigeration & Air-
conditioning EquipmentSemiconductorsWood Products
Office-based and Service Sector Organizations
Calculation Tools
The GHG Protocol Project Accounting Protocol and Tools
Drivers for Development of New Standards
Need for an
internationally
standardized
approach to
measuring and
reporting
emissions in
products and
corporate value
chains
Requests for GHG data by
business, customers, investors,
consumers & others
Inclusion of value chain & life cycle GHG emissions in reporting &
reduction goals
Corporate value chain & product GHG measurement
initiatives
Current Work: Corporate Scope 3 Accounting & Reporting Standard
Current Work: Product Life Cycle Accounting & Reporting Standard
Material Acquisition
Production
RetailUse
End of Life
Current Work: Sector Guidance & Calculation Tools
Green Power Accounting Guidelines
ICT Sector Guidelines
Agricultural Protocol
Current Work: Ag Sector Protocol
Objective
– Develop and harmonize practices for the development of corporate GHG emissions inventories
– Ensure access to complete, accurate and credible GHG data with which to evaluate environmental performance
– Promote industry’s adoption of improved environmental practices
Current Work: Ag Sector Protocol
Scope
–Corporate Scope 1, 2, & 3
–All agricultural activities
• e.g. livestock, grains, vegetables, fruits, woody crops
–Both mechanical sources and non-mechanical sources (carbon stocks, soil N2O, enteric fermentation, etc)
Intended Audience– Agricultural and horticultural production– Companies with supply chains in the agricultural
sector – GHG reporting programs; e.g. CDP, GHGP Brazil
Program, U.K. DEFRA, USDA– Government agencies seeking to identify relevant
performance metrics for the sector– Farm-level sustainability initiatives
Current Work: Ag Sector Protocol
GHG Protocol Development Process
Inclusive, International, Multi-Stakeholder Process
• Three general types of GHG Protocol Outputs:
– Standards
– Sector Guidance/Tools
– Adopted Sector Guidance/Tools
Standard Development Process
Secretariat
Steering Committee
Technical Working
Group (TWG)
Road Testers
Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)
• Over 60 diverse, international companies
• Inclusive international public group, over 1,400 members
• GHG Protocol team members ( WRI/WBSCD)
• 25 international experts from industry, academia, NGOs, governments
• Over 160 participants from industry, academia, NGOs, governments
Scope 3 and Product Standard
International Engagement
Standard Development Process: The Product Standard
Draft 1 DevelopmentNovember 2008 – November 2009
• Text drafted by the technical working groups• Used ISO 14044 and PAS 2050 as seed documents• Several consultations with the Steering Committee
Standard Development Process: The Product Standard
Draft 1 DevelopmentJanuary – November 2009
Draft 2 DevelopmentDecember 2009 – November 2010
• Collected Feedback on Draft 1 through:
– Public stakeholder comment period
– 5 stakeholder workshops in US, Europe, and China
– Road testing by 40 diverse, international companies
• Consulted with the Steering Committee, Technical Working Groups, and Road Testers on proposed changes• Engaged with the ISO 14067 development and PAS 2050 revision process to promote harmonization
Standard Development Process: The Product Standard
Draft 1 DevelopmentJanuary – November 2009
Draft 2 DevelopmentDecember 2009 – November 2010
Final Standard Development
December 2010 – Fall 2011
• Collected feedback on Draft 2 through public comment period (English and Chinese)• Consulted with all stakeholder groups on proposed changes• Circulate requirements to Technical Working Groups, Road Testers, and Steering Committee before finalization (March/April 2011)• Standard text finalized Summer 2011• Standard launch begins Fall 2011
Sector Guidance Development Process
Secretariat
Technical Advisory Group
Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)
• Inclusive international public or sector-specific group to review completed drafts
• GHG Protocol team members ( WRI/WBSCD) and any other core partners involved in the development
• Diverse, international group who provides review and technical insight in the development of drafts
Sector Guidance Development: Ag Protocol
• Form technical advisory group (by invitation)
• Distribute questionnaire to obtain stakeholder feedback on working paper and outstanding issues
• Release first draft of Protocol
• Conduct stakeholder review of first draft
• Release second draft
• Road testing
• Publish final Agricultural Protocol
Now
04 - 05 / 2011
09 / 2011
04 / 2012
09 / 2012
Illustrative List of TAG Applicants
• Consultancies: WSP Group, Best Foot Forward, AgRefresh, Industrial Ecology Consultants, Carbon Trust, PWC
• Government: Landcare Research, DEFRA, US DOE, Manitoba, Minais Gerais State (Brazil), New Zealand MAFF
• Producers/food companies: Unilever, BrockenhurstFarm (SA)
• Academic: Portland State University, Scottish Agricultural College
• GHG reporting programs: CDP, Brazil GHG Program
Sector Guidance Adoption Approach
• To adopt externally developed sector guidance, the GHG Protocol team must ensure:– Inclusive stakeholder input was sought and received– The guidance follows the GHG Protocol Standard(s) on
which it is based– An open comment period was conducted– The tool will be made freely available
• GHG Protocol may conduct additional stakeholder review in the form of a peer review, written comment period, and/or review workshop
Conclusions
Benefits of the GHG Protocol: – International, inclusive and balanced stakeholder
process
– Freely Available
– Drives practical business decision making
– Provides full suite of GHG accounting and reporting tools
– Road tested by diverse, international companies
– The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard is theinternationally accepted corporate accounting standard
Conclusions
Lessons from the GHG Protocol
– Widespread adoption of a standard methodology requires:
• Inclusive stakeholder process
• International engagement
• Practical feedback through road tests
• Program adoption
• Tools and guidance
• Harmonization with other international standards
Conclusions
Lessons from the Product Standard– Guidance is needed for sectors where:
• Complex accounting occurs
• Data availability is a barrier to implementation
• Comparison is a goal
– Harmonized international standards are a must to create:• Consistent calculations along the supply chain
• Consistent sector guidance
• Reduce the burden of implementation
Opportunities
• To learn more:
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/
• Learn more about the Ag Protocol and get engaged here
• Go here for more details on the Scope 3 and Product Standards
We are looking forward to discussing partnerships
with FAO, others
Thank You!
Extra Slides
Product Standard: Overview of Key Requirements
Product Comparisons
31
• Performance Tracking
Supported by the Product Standard “As-Is”
• Purchasing decisions (e.g. by consumers or businesses)
• Product labels
• Performance claims made by stakeholders
Supported with GHG program specifications
• Comparative Assertions
Not supported by the Product Standard
Draft Standard – Subject to Change
Boundary Setting
• All attributable processes shall be included in the product
inventory. Any exclusions shall be disclosed and justified in the
inventory report.
• Non-attributable processes, such as capital goods, should be
included when relevant.
• Companies shall conduct a cradle-to-grave assessment for all
final products. Companies may conduct a cradle-to-gate
assessment for intermediate products. Cradle-to-gate
inventories shall be clearly reported and justified.
32Draft Standard – Subject to Change
• Primary data shall be collected for all processes under the control of the reporting company– Primary data is defined as process data (direct emissions, energy, or
physical data) specific to the given process
• For all other processes, primary or secondary data shall be collected
• Activity data, emission factors, and/or direct emissions data shall be assessed by the data quality indicators during the data collection process
• Data Quality Indicators include:
Data
33
Technological Representativeness
Geographical Representativeness
TemporalRepresentativeness Completeness Precision
Draft Standard – Subject to Change
Data Reporting
• For significant processes, companies shall report a descriptive statement on the data sources, the data quality, and any efforts taken to improve data quality
• Companies shall report a qualitative statement on sources of uncertainty and methodological choices.
34Draft Standard – Subject to Change
Recycling
• Companies should choose between one of the following methods: – Recycled material input is assigned 100 % of the recycling
process emissions (100-0 input /cut-off method)
– Recycled material output is assigned 100% of the recycling process emissions, and corresponding emissions related to extraction and processing of raw materials with the same properties is displaced by the recycled material (0-100 output /closed loop approximation method)
• Companies may use another method consistent with the general allocation requirements
• Method shall be disclosed in the inventory report
35Draft Standard – Subject to Change
Land Use Change
• Attributable direct land use change impacts shall be included in the product inventory
• Land use change impacts may be attributable to a product if the following are true:– A carbon stock change occurred within the assessment
period: 20 years or a single harvest period from the extraction or production of a product, whichever timeframe is longer
– A carbon stock change is a result of human intervention to create a product through the extraction and/or production of biogenic material
• Indirect land use impacts may be calculated and disclosed separately in the inventory report
36Draft Standard – Subject to Change
Assurance
• The product GHG inventory shall be assured by an independent first or third party.
• Data assurance shall be performed when possible.
• When data assurance is not possible, model assurance shall be performed.
• Propose adding critical review as an acceptable type of model assurance
37Draft Standard – Subject to Change
Biogenic & Delayed Emissions
Inventory Results: g CO2e /Functional Unit
Total Inventory Results
Biogenic Inventory Results
(when applicable)
Non-Biogenic Inventory Results
(when applicable)
Land Use Impact
(when applicable)
Removals Emissions Removals Emissions
• A weighting factor for delayed emissions shall not be applied to the total inventory results
• Companies wishing to report results with a weighting factor may do so separately
38Draft Standard – Subject to Change
Reporting
• Public reporting is essential to ensure accountability and effective engagement with stakeholders
• Reporting requirements are consistent with ISO 14044 for third-party reports
• Public reports shall include a disclaimer stating that the results are not meant as a platform for comparability to other companies and/or products
39Draft Standard – Subject to Change
ReportingGeneral Inventory Information
Parameter Description [Template Notes]Company Name and Contact Information
Studied Product Name[Material Product or Service, Brand Name if applicable]
Studied Product Description
[Brief product description including whether it is a final or intermediate product]
Type of Inventory
[Final Product Cradle-to-Grave Inventory OR Intermediate Product Cradle-to-Gate Inventory]
Goal of Public Disclosure [See Chapter 3 for business goals]
Sector Guidance or Product Rules [Include reference to sector guidance or Product Rules used when applicable]
Inventory Date and Version
[Year inventory was finalized][1 if first inventory, 2,3 etc. for future versions]
Link to previous inventory reports and description of any methodological changes (when applicable)
[1] Companies are not required to use sector guidance or product rules, but if guidance was used then it is referenced here.
Reporting
Establishing the Scope & Boundary Information
Unit of Analysis
[Functional unit for cradle-to-grave inventories, reference flow for cradle-to-gate inventories, see Chapter 6]
Reference Flow [see Chapter 6]
Time Boundary [see Chapter 7]Country/Region of Product Consumption [for cradle-to-grave inventories]
Process Map [see Chapter 7]
Reporting
Life Cycle Stages
Stage Definition Stage Description
Material Acquisition & Preprocessing
[Brief description the life cycle stage, including the start and end point and the time boundary of each stage when applicable . Non-attributable processes included in the boundary can be reported here or in the process map.]
Production
Distribution & Storage
Use
End-of-Life
Reporting
Inventory Results: Percent of Total Inventory Results per Life Cycle Stage
Stage DefinitionValue (Percent of Total CO2e)
Displaced Emissions due to 0/100 Output Method Recycling (Percent of Total CO2e)
Material Acquisition & Preprocessing
[Value, see Chapter 12][Only applicable when the 0/100 method is used, see Chapter 8]
Production
Distribution & Storage
Use End-of-Life
ReportingUncertainty
Parameter (data) Uncertainty [Descriptive statement on qualitative uncertainty, See Chapter 11]
Quantitative Uncertainty (Optional)
Methodological Choice & Assumptions
Disclosure & Justification Quantitative Uncertainty (Optional)
Cradle-to-Gate Inventory [Justify why a cradle-to-gate inventory was performed, See Chapter 7]
Use Profile [If more than one use profile was applicable, disclose which method was used and justify the choice, see Chapter 7]
[e.g., range of inventory results assuming different use profiles]
End-of-Life Profile [If more than one end-of-life profile was applicable, disclose which method was used and justify the choice, see Chapter 7]
[e.g., range of inventory results assuming different end-of-life profiles]
Allocation Method (s) [Disclose which allocation methods were used. If more than one allocation method was applicable, disclose which method was used and justify the choice. See Chapter 8]
[e.g., range of inventory results assuming different allocation methods]
Recycling Allocation Method(s) [Disclose which recycling allocation methods were used. Justify the use of a method besides 100/0 and 0/100. See Chapter 8]
[e.g., range of inventory results assuming different recycling allocation methods]
Land Use Change Impacts Method(s)
[Disclose which methods were used to calculate and allocate land use change impacts. Justify the exclusion of land use change impacts if applicable, see Appendix C]
Excluded attributable Processes, Materials, or Energy Flows
[Document and justify all attributable process, material, or energy flow exclusions, including the threshold used for insignificance. See Chapter 7]
Reporting
Assurance
Assurance Type [3rd Party or Self-Assurance, see Chapter 13]
Assurance Process [If Self-Assurance, explain how any potential conflict of interest was avoided]
Assurance Provider [Name, affiliation]
Assurance Opinion [Limited or Reasonable]
