3 APROCO_carbon footprint assessment_EN

Aproco Page 1 of 17
November 2013
Carbon Footprint Assessment Report
-
Aproco Burundi – Green Coffee

Aproco Page 2 of 17
Title
Comprehensive Carbon Footprint Assessment –
Aproco Burundi
Author Andre Eitner
Andre.Eitner@soilandmore.com
Date 08.07.2013
Copyright No part of this publication may be reproduced
in any form by print, photo print, microfilm or
any other means without permission of Soil &
More International.
Disclaimer Neither Soil & More International, nor its
partners, accept any liability whatsoever for
any direct or consequential loss however
arising from any use of this document or its
contents or otherwise arising in connection
herewith.
Contact
address
Soil & More International
Hoofdstraat 24
NL 3972 LA Driebergen
The Netherlands
T: +31 (0) 880 079 500
F: +31 (0) 880 079 555
W: www.soilandmore.com

Aproco Page 3 of 17
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ......................................................................................... 3
List of Tables................................................................................................ 4
List of Figures .............................................................................................. 4
Acronyms and Glossary ................................................................................ 4
1 Executive Summary................................................................................... 6
2 General Information.................................................................................. 8
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................8
2.2 Goals of a Carbon Footprint Assessment ............................................8
2.3 Functional Unit................................................................................8
3 Methodology.............................................................................................. 9
3.1 General methodology.......................................................................9
3.2 System boundary and scopes ...........................................................9
3.3 Data sources ................................................................................10
3.4 Allocation with co-production..........................................................11
3.5 Exclusions ....................................................................................12
4 Greenhouse Gas Inventory...................................................................... 12
4.1 Farming stage ..............................................................................12
4.2 Processing stage ...........................................................................13
4.3 Transport Stage ............................................................................13
4.4 Results ........................................................................................14
5 References .............................................................................................. 16

Aproco Page 4 of 17
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview Emissions per Source ........................................................ 6
Table 2: Global Warming Potential Overview................................................... 8
Table 3: Overview Inputs Farm Level........................................................... 12
Table 4: Emissions on Farm Level ............................................................... 13
Table 5: Emissions on Processing Level........................................................ 13
List of Figures
Figure 1: Emission Sources & Sinks ............................................................... 7
Figure 2: Distribution of Emissions per Source ................................................ 7
Figure 3: System Boundaries ...................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Emission Sources & Sinks ............................................................. 14
Figure 5: Distribution of Emission per Source................................................ 15
Figure 6: Emission Breakdown .................................................................... 15
Acronyms and Glossary
Allocation Partitioning the input or output flows of a process or
a product system between the product system under
study and one more other product system
Carbon credit Certificate that represents 1 tonne of CO2e that can
generated by emission reduction projects
Carbon footprint Sum of all GHG emissions produced by the product’s
life cycle (within the defined boundary)
Carbon label Quantitative or qualitative label on a product that
displays the carbon footprint of a product
Carbon neutral Emissions related to a product that have been
compensated by the purchase of carbon credits
CH4 Methane Gas has a GWP of 25 CO2e
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Co-products Products that originate from the same raw material
Functional unit Quantified performance of a product system for use
as a reference unit
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
Input Products, material or a energy flow that enters a unit
process
IPPC Intergovernmental panel on climate change
ISO 14044 International standard for life cycle assessments,
developed by ISO in 2006
Kyoto Protocol International treaty with the goal of achieving
“stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system”
Life Cycle Assessment Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs
and the potential environmental impacts of a product
system throughout its life cycle
Life cycle Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product
system, from raw materials acquisition to final
disposal

Aproco Page 5 of 17
N2O Nitrous Oxide has a GWP of 298 CO2e
Output Product, material or energy flow that leaves a unit
process
PAS 2050 First international standard for carbon footprint
assessments, developed by Carbon Trust in 2008
Product system Collection of all processes which model the life cycle
of a product
System boundary Set of criteria specifying which unit processes are
part of a product system
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change
VER Voluntary Emission Reduction or Verified Emission
Reduction, also called carbon credit

Aproco Page 6 of 17
1 Executive Summary
This study aims to layout and calculate a comprehensive CO2e (carbon dioxide
equivalent) footprint of green coffee produced by Aproco in Burundi.
Results of this footprint were identified:
 Per total footprint (emissions caused by the product’s life cycle)
 Per stage (farming, processing and transport)
The total footprint amounts to 1.286 kg CO2e per kg of green coffee in the port
of Mombasa / Daresalam ready to be shipped overseas.
The emission sources & sinks for farm level, transport stages and processing of
the coffee cherries into green coffee have been been considered. The functional
unit used in this assessment is 1 kg of green coffee in the port of Mombasa or
Daresalam packed in bags and ready to be shipped.
The table below provides an overview of all relevant emission sources and sinks
identified in this assessment.
Table 1: Overview Emissions per Source
Green Coffee CO2 N2O CH4 Emissions
for total
area, kg
CO2 eq
Per
hectare
Per kilogram
fertiliser
production 10.237,4 - - 10.237,4 128,0 0,1
direct and indirect
field N2O
-
214,1
-
63.361,9 792,0 0,9
pesticides
3.280,0 - - 3.280,0 41,0 0,0
crop residue
management - 117,6 1.044,5 60.927,5 761,6 0,9
carbon stock
changes -69.772,0 - - -69.772,0 -872,1 -1,0
field energy use
- - - - - -
primary
processing 1.072,0 - - 1.072,0 13,4 0,0
waste water
- - - - - -
off-farm transport - - -
18.509,1 231,4 0,3
totals
(55.182,5) 331,7 1.044,5 87.616,0 1.095,2 1,3

Aproco Page 7 of 17
Figure 1: Emission Sources & Sinks
Figure 2: Distribution of Emissions per Source
This assessment and the report comply with all relevant carbon footprinting
standards and also explicitly with the ISO 14067 technical specification.

Aproco Page 8 of 17
2 General Information
2.1 Introduction
This carbon footprint calculation was carried out by Soil & More International B.V.
and its representative Andre Eitner upon request of Aproco in collaboration with
the Burundi Bureau of Standards and the Swedish Standards Institute.
This study aims to layout and calculate a comprehensive CO2e (carbon dioxide
equivalent) footprint of green coffee produced by Aproco in Burundi.
The term “carbon footprint” means the total sum of all greenhouse gas emissions
caused by a product’s life cycle. The system boundaries of such a footprint are
clearly defined for each assessment individually (see chapter 3.2). The term
greenhouse gas emissions stands for compressible fluids that were attributed a
coefficient for their global warming potential by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). This study includes 3 different greenhouse gases that are
emitted during different stages of a product’s life cycle: carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of
methane and nitrous oxide is higher than the carbon dioxide’s, meaning that they
are stronger greenhouse gases. In the following footprint, all identified
greenhouse gases are converted into CO2e by multiplying them with the GWP
value.
Table 2: Global Warming Potential Overview
Type of gas Chemical formula GWP 100
Carbon dioxide CO2 1
Methane CH4 25
Nitrous oxide N2O 298
2.2 Goals of a Carbon Footprint Assessment
This assessment results in the carbon footprint of 1 kg of green coffee produced
by Aproco in Burundi. The goal is to identify sources of greenhouse gas
emissions, and to calculate the exact amount of such gases emitted due to the
assessed products’ life cycle as defined for this study in chapter 3.2 below.
The carbon footprint serves to identify the environmental performance of a
specific product as to greenhouse gas emissions, thus assessing its impact on
climate change.
2.3 Functional Unit
A functional unit is the quantified performance of a product for use as a reference
unit in a given assessment1
. For this comprehensive carbon footprint assessment,
the functional unit was identified to be 1 kg of green coffee in the port of
departure (Mombasa / Daresalam).
Therefore, all greenhouse gas emissions caused by the primary production stage,
the processing stage and the transportation stage of coffee are broken down to a
quantified unit of 1 kg final product.
1
ISO 14067, p. 16 ‘Functional Unit.

Aproco Page 9 of 17
3 Methodology
3.1 General methodology
The methodology used for this assessment follows the requirements outlined in
the ISO 14067 draft document.
3.2 System boundary and scopes
In this chapter, the system boundary of the assessed tea will be described. The
term boundary refers to the set of criteria specifying which unit processes are
part of a product’s life cycle and are therefore accounted for in the carbon product
of a specific product. Once the system boundary has been defined, the
greenhouse gas emissions arising during the different stages of the product’s life
cycle will be identified.
System boundary:
The carbon footprint includes the greenhouse gas emissions that are released
during different stages of the life cycle of the assessed product. The inputs and
outputs are analyzed for every production stage, and emissions related to
production and transport are calculated.
The emissions that are directly emitted during one stage, but also indirect
emissions are taken into account. For instance the combustion of fossil fuels
causes a direct emission in a production or transport phase, but the production of
fossil fuels is also related to greenhouse gas emissions. The latter one is called an
indirect emission.
For every production stage the inputs and outputs are inventoried. This means
that the yield (of main and co-products) is inventoried, just like the amount of
discarded products.
The following stages in the life cycle of tea are included:
 Stage 1: Farming
o Energy consumption: electricity and diesel/petrol for tractors and
other equipment
o Soil emissions (see Annex 1 for the calculation method of direct
and indirect soil emissions related to fertilizer use)
o Transport to next stage
 Indirect emissions due to the manufacturing and transport
of agricultural inputs
 Indirect emission due to the generation of used energy
 Indirect emission due to the production and transport of
used fossil fuels
 Stage 2: Processing
o Energy consumption: electricity and diesel/petrol use
of processing inputs (e.g. packaging materials)
used fossil fuels
 Stage 3: Transport to Port of Departure
o Energy consumption: electricity and diesel/petrol use

Aproco Page 10 of 17
of processing inputs (e.g. packaging materials)
used fossil fuels
Figure 3: System Boundaries
3.3 Data sources
Different forms of data may be taken to carry out a comprehensive carbon
footprint. The most commonly used types of data are:
 Primary data: data taken from documents that are directly linked to the
specific assessment, such as electricity invoices to calculate emissions
caused due to electricity.
 Secondary data: such as databases, studies, and reports.
 Assumptions: assumptions made based on internationally recognised
standards and studies.
Wherever possible, primary data was used to carry out this carbon footprint. In
case such primary data wasn’t available, secondary data used. In case the
sources of this secondary data proved to be unreliable, assumptions were made.
The analysis of data was carried out on the basis of the following criteria:
 Completeness: a comprehensive carbon footprint assessment must be
based on complete data, as too many assumptions might distort the final
result.
 Reliability: data must be taken from reliable sources, it should be
transparent and traceable.

 Accuracy: data must be as accurate as possible, also as to the specific
process, product or company.
 Time frame: data must be taken from one particular, clearly defined
period in time (which is usually a period of 12 months).
 Geographical affiliation: specific data for the assessed region, or country
must be taken for the assessment.
In case of uncertainty or several, different data sources or emission factors, the
most conservative approach – meaning the value causing the highest amount of
emissions – was taken for the calculation.
In general, it is advised to use as much primary data as possible. Doing so, the
actual emissions can be quantified in a more understandable way, and
opportunities to improve efficiency can be easier identified.
This footprint is mainly based on primary data provided by Aproco. During a
meeting in February in Burundi, the staff of Aproco provided all relevant primary
data (see annex figure 2).
The provided data accounts for all activities in the year 2012. Data for processing
level and transport were taken straight from the companies accounting system.
Please refer to figure 1 in the annex for an overview of the farm level data.
All data that was provided is specific to either the processes or the geographical
relevant farming practices. It can therefore be assumed that the relevance of the
data is very high. The same is true for the level of accuracy and completeness of
the data provided.
It can thus be stated that the uncertainty of the data used in this footprint
assessment is very low.
3.4 Allocation with co-production
In many processing steps, one raw material is used to produce many different
products (co-products) and the “upstream” emissions (gases that are emitted in
earlier processing steps) have to be assigned to the different products. This
division of upstream environmental effects is called “allocation” and can be done
in several ways.
In this study, economic allocation is used for situations where the absolute or
relative price and the mass balance are known. A combination of the two
determines the allocation factors (table 2). Mass allocation is used in the
situation, where prices are unknown, or in situations where economic allocation is
not applicable (for instance: transport of different products in one truck or
packaging of many different products in one pack house). In this document the
used allocation method and allocation factors are mentioned for each process
phase.
In this assessment no allocation had to be included.

3.5 Exclusions
In general the following sources of emissions are not included in the carbon
footprint:
 The user phase of products is not included in the carbon footprint, as it is
impossible from the position of a lint producer to determine in which final
product their material will be used. Furthermore it can be argued that from
their perspective in the value chain, tea is a final product. Following the
standard guidelines allows to then draw the boundaries accordingly.
 The waste/recycling phase of the product is excluded, because of high
uncertainty.
 Emissions from the production of capital goods (like trucks, airplanes and
buildings).
 Travelling of employees to and from normal place of work.
 Human energy requirements.
 Animals providing transport services.
 Transport of consumers to and from retail.
4 Greenhouse Gas Inventory
The Cool Farm Tool – a widely accepted carbon footprint calculation tool – was
used to process the provided data.
4.1 Farming stage
The following data has been used to calculate the carbon footprint on farm level.
Table 3: Overview Inputs Farm Level
Total area 80 ha
Total yield coffee cherries 426.396,5 kg
Total yield green coffee 69.800 kg
Fertilizer (NPK 15:15:15) 133,3 kg /ha
Compost 8 t / ha
Pesticide applications 2
Crop residues 4,3 t / ha
The farming practices include the mulching of residues and the incorporation of
large quantities of compost. These practices do not only lead to greenhouse gas
emissions, but also to sinks – meaning that carbon is sequestered in the soil.
These sinks counterbalance the emission on farm level to a certain degree, as can
be seen below.

Table 4: Emissions on Farm Level
for total
area, kg
CO2 eq
Per
hectare
Per kilogram
fertiliser
production 10.237,4 - - 10.237,4 128,0 0,1
direct and indirect
field N2O
-
214,1
-
63.361,9 792,0 0,9
pesticides
3.280,0 - - 3.280,0 41,0 0,0
crop residue
management - 117,6 1.044,5 60.927,5 761,6 0,9
carbon stock
changes -69.772,0 - - -69.772,0 -872,1 -1,0
field energy use
- - - - - -
Especially the use of fertilizers (both chemical and organic) result in considerable
amounts of emissions. The use of compost however creates a large carbon sink.
As a result of these practices 1 kg of coffee cherries after harvest has a footprint
of 0.9 kg CO2e.
4.2 Processing stage
Aproco produced 69.800 kg of green coffee out of the above mentioned coffee
cherries of 426.396,5 kg. The following material and energy inputs were required.
Table 5: Emissions on Processing Level
Diesel 400 l
These inputs led to emissions of 0.01 kg CO2e per kg green coffee during the
processing part adding up to a footprint of 0.91 kg CO2e after processing, packed
and ready to be transported to the port. This includes the emissions that occurred
for the transport of coffee cherries to the factory.
4.3 Transport Stage
Aproco uses the ports of Mombasa / Daresalam to ship their coffee. The transport
is outsourced to private companies and it can be assumed that those trucks do
not return empty.
The transport emissions add up to a total of 0.3 kg CO2e per kg of tea transported
to the warehouse in the port, adding up to a total footprint of 1,28 kg CO2e per
functional unit.

Table 6: Emissions all Stages
for total
area, kg
CO2 eq
Per
hectare
Per kilogram
fertiliser
production 10.237,4 - - 10.237,4 128,0 0,1
direct and indirect
field N2O
-
214,1
-
63.361,9 792,0 0,9
pesticides
3.280,0 - - 3.280,0 41,0 0,0
crop residue
management - 117,6 1.044,5 60.927,5 761,6 0,9
carbon stock
changes -69.772,0 - - -69.772,0 -872,1 -1,0
field energy use
- - - - - -
primary
processing 1.072,0 - - 1.072,0 13,4 0,0
waste water
- - - - - -
off-farm transport - - -
18.509,1 231,4 0,3
totals
(55.182,5) 331,7 1.044,5 87.616,0 1.095,2 1,3
4.4 Results
Figure 4: Emission Sources & Sinks

The figure above highlights the emissions sources & sinks for 1 kg of green coffee
processed by Aproco and transported to the port of Mombasa / Daresalam.
As mentioned earlier, especially the return of biomass to the soil acts as a carbon
sink and thus balances out the emissions. The figure below gives a detailed
representation of the relative contribution to the emissions of the functional unit.
Figure 5: Distribution of Emission per Source
Emissions on primary production level constitute 78% of the overall emissions,
while processing has a share of 1% and transport 21%.
Figure 6: Emission Breakdown

5 References
 World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)/World
Resources Institute (WRI), 2004, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Corporate
Accounting and Reporting Standard, revised Edition
 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2006 IPCC Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm
 United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the GHG Indicator: UNEP
Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Businesses and
Non-Commercial Organisations
http://www.uneptie.org/energy/tools/ghgin/index.htm
 International Energy Agency
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/index.asp
 Robert D. Heap, Refrigeration and air conditioning – the response to
climate change, a Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) study
 Falk Routen-Planer http://www.falk.de
 My-Climate air-travel emission calculator http://www.myclimate.ch
 South Pole Carbon Asset Management, Switzerland
 Peter van Ijzendoorn, “Berekenmodel voor het bepalen / compenseren van
de CO2 emissie van voedingsmiddelen”, Wageningen University,
Netherlands
 Eco3
– Group http://www.eco3.co.uk
 UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs
http://www.defra.gov.uk/
 DEFRA (2003), Guidelines for the Measurement and Reporting of
Emissions by direct participants in the UK Emissions Trading
Scheme, UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
London, UK ETS(01)05rev2
 PAS 2050:2008, Specification for the assessment of the life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services, Carbon Trust
 Guide to PAS 2050, How to assess the carbon footprint of goods and
services, Carbon Trust
 Code of Good Practise for product Greenhouse gas emissions and
Reduction Claims, Carbon Trust
 ISO , International Standard on Environmental
Performance Evaluation, ( ISO 14044), International Standard
Organization, Geneva
 CCAR (2003), General Reporting Guidelines, California Climate
Action Registry

 GRI (2002), Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines, Global Reporting Initiative
 LOHAS – Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability (2007), Ernst & Young
 Baldo, G. L., Marion, M., Montani, M., S-O, Ryding, 2008. Study for the EU
Ecolabel Carbon Footprint Measurement Toolkit. Final Activity Report.
Studio LCE, Italy & SEMC, Sweden
 Capturing the Green Advantage for Consmuer Companies (2009), The
Boston Consulting Group.
 Why sustainability is still growing (2009) – Daniel Vermeer and Robert
Clemen, Corporate Sustainability Initiative at the Fuqua School of
Business, Duke University, published in the “Financial Times”, 13 February
2009.

3 APROCO_carbon footprint assessment_EN

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to 3 APROCO_carbon footprint assessment_EN

Similar to 3 APROCO_carbon footprint assessment_EN (20)

3 APROCO_carbon footprint assessment_EN