Scientists have discovered CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased 30% faster than they expected since 2000. Industries are doing an enormous amount of work on calculating emissions, and improving efficiencies, but is there yet a best practice scenario for measuring and communicating a consistent message on environmental credentials?

Carbon footprints

Carbon footprints, which measure greenhouse gas emissions, are making tracks, but there are a number of available methodologies, including Bilan Carbone, which was used by Oeneo to study their closure types, and CarboNZero in NZ, used by Marlborough’s New Zealand Wine Company, which makes brands such as Grove Mill and Sanctuary.   

Different schemes use different, and therefore potentially non-comparable, methodologies. To counter this, a lot of work is being done by the Carbon Trust, Defra and BSI Global to produce a generic methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions, which, they hope, will be widely adopted, even going so far as to say they hope at some point in the future the generic methodology will become an international standard (ISO).

The work is being done via a Publicly Available Specification – PAS 2050 – which measures the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of products and services. In the food and drinks industries, Cadbury Schweppes, Coca-Cola, the Co-operative Group, Scottish and Newcastle and Tesco are all part of the second phase of pilot partners trialling the draft specification.  

A spokesperson for BSI Global said “Part of the PAS process has been to identify and assess existing methods for the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions.  PAS 2050 is intended as the first step towards a future internationally agreed method for organisations to measure the GHG emissions embodied in their products and services.”

The aim is to develop a single common standard relevant across products and business sectors, using the feedback from partners.  Publication of the specification is expected in July 2008. This will be relevant for anyone wanting to look at their carbon footprint. 

The generic calculation will need to be customised for different industries. “A project is being lead by the wine industries of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and California”, said Amy Russell, National Natural Resource Management Coordinator at the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia. And FIVS, the International Federation of Wines and Spirits, have been briefed, she says “as they may choose to adopt the ‘carbon footprint’ protocol and methodology and expose it to a wider industry audience”.

FIVS head of secretariat, Bennett Caplan said: “The [wine industry] protocol will determine what emissions sources and sinks should be included in the calculation of the carbon footprint of wine production.” A calculation tool was expected to be completed at the end of 2007.   It is planned that this global methodology will be consistent with the PAS 2050, and it is being designed to be relevant to small, medium and large businesses. Provisor, an Australian consultancy company has been awarded the contract to produce the work.

Fundamental to carbon footprints are what to include and exclude, where the carbon trail starts and stops. Caplan said: “Key issues will be the inclusion/exclusion of emissions arising from transport to market, the Kyoto assumption of sequestration in the vineyard directly offsetting emissions from fermentation, and the actual availability of hard data that can be used in calculating a carbon footprint.”

Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) and sustainability

A life cycle assessment most commonly covers all ‘environmental impacts’ through the lifecycle of a product, from raw material production, the manufacturing process, through the ‘in-use’ phase (e.g. driving a car, or consuming groceries) and disposal. As well as greenhouse gases, this assessment could also cover such things as the use of water, emission of toxic wastes and gases, and packaging waste.  

Peter Clark, operational and technical affairs manager at the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) says “a carbon footprint could be an element of the wider sustainability picture. Carbon footprints relate to one part of measuring sustainability.  LCAs look at a whole range of other environmental impacts.”

The SWA is working with its members to develop an industry environmental sustainability strategy, but in the meantime they have been part of a voluntary climate change agreement covering distilling operations, which focus on the production element of a life cycle. The 67 distilleries involved, which include gin and vodka distilleries, have improved efficiencies and invested in new, greener technologies, such as recycling excess distillery energy to heat local homes and facilities. Clark said: “Since the agreement started in 2001, production is 4% higher and we have achieved a 10% reduction in CO2  emissions.”

Putting their full weight behind the sustainability route, the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) has committed its members, who represent around 70% of the UK food and drink manufacturing industry, to a five-fold environmental plan, which includes sending zero food and packaging waste to landfill by 2015 and reducing water use by 20% by 2020, compared to 2007.

An FDF spokesperson said: “Our ambition is to make a real difference to the environment by focusing on those areas where we can have maximum impact.  CO2 reduction is the most important aspect but not the only one.  Indeed, the food and drink manufacturing sector has reduced its CO2 emissions by just over 15% between 1990 and 2005.  FDF’s aspiration for a 30% reduction by 2020 would mean our members saving 1½ million tonnes of CO2 compared to 1990, the same as taking 350,000 cars off the road.”

Eliminating food miles

Whilst consumers in the UK have taken ‘food miles’ to their hearts as an ostensibly easy-to-understand concept, the reality is that food miles as a single indicator of sustainability has been discredited.

We know that efficient long miles can produce less carbon than inefficient short miles. Caplan said; “Studies have shown that long distance sea freight, a common mode of wine transport, produces fewer emissions compared to short-haul road and air freight. ”

And so to labelling …

As one climate change consultant said: “you have to be very careful comparing one carbon footprint with another – you must be clear what has been included and what has been ignored.”

Whether it’s carbon footprints, LCAs, or sustainability indices, there are numerous difficulties to translate these complex equations to something that’s understood by, and useful for, consumers.  

The Carbon Trust’s ‘carbon reduction label’ is being trialled with the project’s partners.  It communicates a commitment to reduce carbon emissions. Used in conjunction with the carbon footprint logo and emissions figure, consumers would be able to track a lowering figure of the brands they buy.

The Trust’s spokesperson said: “The carbon reduction label includes emissions from source to arrival at the store and also includes product disposal. The emissions in the use of the product are not included, as these are highly variable depending on the user of the product. For example the carbon emitted when shampoo is used varies according to how hot or cold a person’s shower is.”

Labelling so far largely occurs at the point of production, but, said Russell: “how wine distribution, sale, consumption, disposal, collection and recycling are dealt with will be interesting. All these are out of the control of the producer and are subject to gross generalizations.”

Additionally, she said: “A carbon footprint is not static, and will change with seasonal variations, transport modes, packaging and product use/disposal/recycling. Measuring the footprint is therefore not a one-off exercise, and constantly updating or changing labels can be expensive.”

Conclusion

It’s early days and things are fast-moving. The PAS 2050 will be emerging at the time of publication, as will Provisor’s carbon calculation for the wine industry. Communicating consistently with consumers exactly what climate change measures are being undertaking by businesses and products will become increasingly important. And, given the speed of progress, not-very-much-time-at-all will tell whether carbon footprints are one giant leap for mankind, or one large, purposeful stride of a longer walk towards full-scale environmental impact accountability.

In a trade that is heavily reliant on natural resources to provide non-essential products, the wine industry needs to ensure it has appropriate sustainability credentials. 

Initiatives exist, but they vary in content and extent: just the vineyard or the winery too?  What sort of ethical element? Voluntary self-scoring systems or third party certified? Inbuilt annual improvements to measure progress? Tiered systems to distinguish beginners from long-time walkers? Communication to consumers?

FIVS, an international alcohol beverage trade body, has drawn up Global Wine Sector Environmental Sustainability Principles (GWSESP), under which four new world countries have sustainability  schemes:

The New World

Sustainable Winegrowing New Zealand (SWNZ) started in the vineyard in 1997, with a winery module launched in 2002, and has recently announced intentions to remove the voluntary component for participants in industry events.  Philip Manson, science and innovations manager at New Zealand Winegrowers (NZW) said: “our goal is [to be] 100% accredited under independently audited schemes including SWNZ, biodynamics, organics and ISO 14000.” 

The SWNZ is a tiered system, and, Manson said “the only tier of participation where the member can make any claims regarding their sustainability status is tier three.” He added: “over the years there have been a range of changes to the practices, including restriction or removal of some agrochemicals, and inclusion of new practices e.g. encouraging use of biological control for pests and diseases.”

South Africa’s voluntary, certified Integrated Production of Wine (IPW) has also been running for a decade. Ethical aspects are covered under WIETA (Wine Industry Ethical Trade Association) which is both compulsory and independently certified. And IPW contains biodiversity guidelines.

Su Birch, CEO of Wines of South Africa said the industry is both raising the bar for IPW membership, and planning to make it compulsory.  She said: “I will know soon whether we will do this by the 2010 vintage. When it happens we will change the ‘bus ticket’ and promote to consumers, so they know we have genuine programmes that stand up to the most rigorous scrutiny.”

Over in California, Allison Jordan, executive director of the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance said “we launched the Sustainable Winegrowing Programme (SWP) in 2002 as an educational programme with a comprehensive self-assessment work book”, now running to 490 pages. She added: “It will become certified. We’ll launch with a pilot phase in 2009, but at this point we’re not going to have a tiered approach.” It will also remain voluntary.  

The Australian Wine Environmental Stewardship program “requires wineries and vineyards to adhere to an environmental standard requiring documentation of environmental action plans and improvement targets. Producers are to be audited against the standard on a regular basis” said Amy Russell, natural resources director at the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia.

Europe

In Europe, winemakers are adopting agriculture-wide programmes such as the certified Agriculture Raisonnée in France, and LEAF (Linking Environment and Farm) in the UK. Yvon Mau in Bordeaux is the first, and so far only, wine company accredited by LEAF, with three certified Bordeaux estates, plus another 12 Agriculture Raisonnée accredited. See box.

Organic/biodynamic

Organic and biodynamic viticulture predate the path to sustainability, and, along with carbon footprints, are seen by some as ’single issue campaigns’ or campaigns that (could) form part of a wider sustainability model, though some advocates already incorporate wider sustainability issues into their production models.

Domaine Zind-Humbrecht, for example, is “installing 400m² of solar panelling that would compensate for the electricity used on the winery and a few houses. All organic waste is recycled on the estate compost, and this is general practice in biodynamics” according to Olivier Humbrecht MW, who added “I know estates that have their own recycling used water unit to re-introduce clean water in the soil.” And though all organic standards are not the same, the Soil Association’s standards have guidelines for energy management and water use, which will become fully enforced in 2012.

Where organics/biodynamics ban the use of agrochemicals, sustainability models advocate their ‘responsible use’.  But copper is cited as an issue for organics/biodynamics, and can be in mild, damp regions where mildew risk is high, such as Bordeaux, where accumulation over decades may yet be an unresolved issue. The damp, cool 2008 vintage was a case in point for Bordeaux organics, but in sunny, dry California, co-owner of Parducci, Paul Dolan said “maybe copper was used in the vineyard one time in 10 years.”

Humbrecht added “we average 1.5kg/ha/year copper. [EU maximum permitted is 6kg/ha/year]. Experiments amongst biodynamists show if we use less than 2kg/ha/year of copper, a soil that’s alive with organic matter and micro-organisms can metabolise this small amount of copper. This lowers copper levels in the soil while still using small amounts.”   

Carbon Footprints

Greenhouse gas emissions have become a key target across industry sectors, yet remain just one component of sustainable development. Russell said: “greenhouse gases are one waste product to be considered when looking at overall environmental sustainability.”  adding: “the Australian industry has made completion of the carbon footprint calculator a requirement of our scheme”.  Birch and Manson said South Africa and NZ were looking to incorporate a carbon calculator into their schemes.

The arguments against certification?

No one NEEDS to be certified to practice any type of sustainable or organic/biodynamic viticulture, but communication becomes problematic, and potentially, misleading. How many producers claim to be working to ‘organic or biodynamic principles’? How many producers claim the non-measured or validated ‘lutte raisonnée’, which popularly translates as any form of agriculture not following the traditional/conventional systematic use of agrochemicals, according to calendar not need?

Apart from cynical marketing opportunities, and outside of any state or national system, some producers have long been travelling the sustainability path.  Dolan “started down the organic grape growing path 20 years ago. The triple bottom line is the mantra for economically, environmentally and ethically viable sustainability, and we want to make sure we’re operating is such a way as being responsible for our own actions.”  He added: “we’re trying to lead the process so others can see what is possible. Our biggest challenge is compost. We supplement compost with some organic cow manure from outside. That’s pretty much all we bring from the outside. It’s taken us 12 years to get where we are.”  No one argues that the sustainable path is a long one.

In Burgundy, Christophe Chauvel, chief viticulturalist at Albert Bichot said ‘culture raisonnée is a philosophy, an approach, and certification will not add anything to vineyard balance. We try to make the vine work by itself. A huge part of this is observation and common sense, and knowing the diseases. We have tools – the meteo stations, sprays, friendly spiders. The aim is to bring the plant back into balance.”

Conclusion

All these initiatives are work in progress, with a need to measure improvements each year as evidence of progress. Certification may become increasingly important as communication with customers becomes more common, as well as to measure and verify improvements. As Dolan said: “sustainability is a process. It’s only possible to become more sustainable.”

FIVS GWSESP areas of environment risk assessment:

• 1. Site selection for new vineyards and wineries
• 2. Grape variety selection for new vineyards
• 3. Soil condition
• 4. Water use efficiency
• 5. Waste water
• 6. Human resources management
• 7. Biodiversity
• 8. Solid waste
• 9. Energy use
• 10. Air quality
• 11. Neighbouring land use
• 12. Agrochemical use

Agriculture raisonée versus ‘traditional’: The Yvon Mau case study

Château Lavison in the Entre-Deux-Mers reduced copper treatments by up to 50%; made no anti-botryits treatments in 2007 versus 2 in 1999; reduced use of weed-killer by 40%; recycled 98% of packaging waste by:

• a) pruning to spread out grape bunches,
• b) increasing air circulation in the canopy
• c) reducing the width of the weeded area under each row
• d) using no herbicide between Aug 1 and March 30
• e) sorting all waste and using local recycling facilities

You can barely take a breath these days without someone trying to measure the carbon footprint of your exhalation and suggest ways to reduce it.

For a business looking to engage in the carbon debate it is all to easy to be swamped at the very first hurdle.  The plethora of information, of government initiatives, of voluntary agreements, of industry commitments, not to mention the different ways of measuring greenhouse gases, and so on, is becoming staggering.   

Transport and distribution

Though consumers have latched onto ‘food miles’, this concept has been discredited as any sort of useful indicator of sustainability or carbon use.  It’s well established that efficient long-haul transport may well create lower carbon emissions than inefficient nationwide haulage.

But it’s true to say that companies making efficiency savings in their distribution network, will by default, be lowering their carbon emissions.  Transport is a very clear focus of attention for carbon reduction opportunities.

Supply chain consulting company Scala have undertaken some workshops with 40 food and drinks industry companies specifically on this issue. In conjunction with the Department for Transport, they are gathering data on five key transport operations indicators: vehicle fill, vehicle utilisation (hours per day), empty running, fuel consumption and delays. Their managing director, John Perry, said “there have been few practical steps taken to improve environmental standards in the supply chain” and the companies involved will be testing various models to measure efficiency indicators, with the aim of creating a standard for measuring the environmental impact of supply chain distribution.  This will have a measurable impact on all areas of the retail and foodservice distribution network.

3663, who are new entrants in the 2007 Sunday Times top 20 best big companies to work for, and who are committed to sustainability, have made significant efficiency savings on their refrigerated deliveries. A spokesperson said: “”When 3663, First for Foodservice, was looking for a more sustainable way to refrigerate deliveries it teamed up with Frigoblock refrigeration systems in a joint venture that saves more than 12,000 tonnes of CO2 per year .” All 1,127 of 3663’s lorries have these electrically-operated units.  In addition, more than two-thirds of their lorries use some proportion of biodiesel mix in their fuel.

Carbon footprints

One of the biggest challenges for carbon footprints is there are several methods used to calculate them. Which means for the consumer they are simply not comparable, as it is difficult to know which inputs have been considered and which ignored. Defra is working with BSI Global and the Carbon Trust to develop a universal methodology and calculation for use across different industries’ products and services.  

A spokesperson for BSI Global said the specification, known as PAS 2050, “will consider all lifecycle stages along the supply chain of a product or service, i.e. from raw materials to end of life.  This includes transportation at every stage of the supply chain.”   

If this work is widely adopted one of its biggest advantages is that it is likely to become possible to compare the carbon footprints of different products and services. 

In the food and drinks industries, Cadbury Schweppes, Coca-Cola, the Co-operative Group, Mϋller Dairy, Scottish and Newcastle and Tesco are all part of the second phase of partner companies working towards the publication of the specification in July 2008.

Wider sustainability

Calculating greenhouse gas emissions – the carbon footprint – is an vital element in the cause of wider sustainability.  Where the methodology dictates, carbon footprints potentially calculate the carbon emissions from every stage in a product’s lifecycle.  Sustainability adds into the equation other issues such as water use, packaging waste, and the impacts of transport – air quality, noise, congestion etc.

According to Defra, the food and drinks industries use 14% of the energy consumed by UK businesses, and accounts for one quarter of all HGV (heavy goods vehicles) vehicle kilometres in the UK. Government’s food industry sustainability strategy (FISS), has targeted the industry, setting objectives on water use, waste management and sustainable sourcing, across the supply chain from manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and the catering sector.  

Dr. Andrew Dunn, of FISS, said it “is a voluntary framework for sustainability in food industry. It has set indicative targets for action, and challenges for the industry. We need innovation to achieve step changes to take forward the sustainability agenda.”

WRAP, the Waste and Resource Action Programme, for example, estimate that food manufacturing (excluding agriculture and horticulture) and foodservice account for more than one-third of total food waste in the UK., which is almost as much as household waste.

WRAP have been working with the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) to identify the best way for the food industry to meet the challenges laid down in FISS.  To this end, a step change in the wider sustainability debate occurred when the FDF recently announced a five-fold environmental ambition on sustainability.  This commits its members, who account for 70% of the food and drinks manufacturing industry to measurable sustainability goals. Up to this point each member has been ploughing its own carbon-reduction furrow.

Their spokesperson said: “Our five-fold ambition is about changing behaviour and delivering collective improvements in environmental performance by FDF members in areas where they make a real difference.  For water use that could be on food manufacturing sites.  However, for food transport, it could be by demanding improvements from third party hauliers who distribute our products.”

On the waste front, FDF has committed its members to send zero food and packaging waste to landfill from 2015.

On energy use, the FDF has committed its members to the FISS target of 20% reduction in emissions between by 2010 compared to 1990, and tasked them to go further to a 30% reduction from the 1990 baseline.    Tate and Lyle, for example, is building a new biomass boiler, which, their spokesperson said, “will reduce Tate & Lyle’s UK cane sugar refinery’s carbon footprint by 30%.”

So, for anyone looking to get involved for the first time examining energy use is a good start point. Use less energy or friendlier energy.  And, said Dr. Dunn “if you behave more sustainably in other areas for example, by conserving water, or reducing waste, you are at the same time, even though it wasn’t your primary goal, saving on energy.” These days, less really is more.