OIV COLLECTIVE EXPERTISE

METHODOLOGICAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
2017
FOR ACCOUNTING FOR
GHG BALANCE IN THE
VITIVINICULTURAL SECTOR
WARNING

This document has not been submitted to the step Procedure for Examining Resolutions and
cannot in any way be treated as an OIV resolution. Only resolutions adopted by the Member States
of the OIV have an official character. This document has been drafted in the framework of Ad-hoc
experts’ group “Carbon footprint” and experts’ group “Sustainable production and climate change”.
This document, drafted and developed on the initiative of the OIV, is a collective expert report.

ISBN: 979-10-91799-75-1
OIV - International organization of vine and wine
18 rue d’Aguesseau
F-75008 Paris – France
www.oiv.int

2 I OIV Collective Expertise

AKNOWLEDGMENTS
AUTHORS / COORDINATION
Tatiana SVINARTCHUK (OIV)

Philippe HUNZIKER (SWITZERLAND)

REVIEWERS
Vittorino NOVELLO (ITALY)

Marco TONNI (ITALY)

John CORBET-MILWARD (co-chair of the FIVS-OIV Committee)

Mario de la FUENTE (OIV)

LAYOUT
Daniela COSTA (OIV)

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of tables 6

index of figures 6

Abbreviations 7

Chapter 1 General considerations 8

1 Scope of the document 9
2 GHG accounting: before we start 9
a. Why do we account for GHG balance? 9
b. Frequency of GHG accounting 10
c. Exact value or approximation? 10
3 Boundaries of the system 11
a. Enterprise protocol: scope 1, 2 or 3? 11
b. Product protocol 11
4 Available data for the vitivinicultural sector 11
a. General considerations: adequacy of the data 11
b. Data quality requirements 12
c. Recommended databases 12
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol and its recommended third party databases 12
Bilan Carbone® (FRANCE) and its Base Carbone database 13
EcoInvent - Switzerland 13
European Life Cycle Database (ELCD) 13
IPCC 13

Chapter 2 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category 14

1 Vineyard (scopes 1 and 3) 15
a. Land use changes 15
Evolution of carbon sink in the soil over time 15
Evolution of carbon sink in the above-ground biomass 17
Evolution of carbon sink in the below ground biomass 19
Evolution of carbon sink in the litter and dead wood 20
b. Carbon stored by the vine 21
Overall importance of vine biomass in carbon storage for the vineyard 21
SHORT TERM (ST) carbon storage by the vine: grapes; non-permanent vine growth 21
Estimation of total carbon stored in vines – LONG TERM CYCLE (LT) 21
Permanent and incremental storage or loss of carbon due to vineyard and
soil management (LONG TERM CYCLE) 22
c. Biodegradation of vine structures in the soil 24
d. N2O emissions resulting from nitrogen fertilization 24
e CH4 emissions from soil 25
2 On-site fuel used (scope 1 and 3) 25
a Emissions from fossil sources 25
Amount of fuel consumed is known (scope 1 or 3) 25
Amount of fuel consumed is not known (scope 3) 27
Emissions from biomass and biofuels: production and transport 27

4 I OIV Collective Expertise

3 Electricity production in-situ: photovoltaic panels, wind generators (scope 3) 29
4 Waste disposal, reuse and recycling (scope 1 and 3) 30
a. Waste disposal and treatment 30
b. Direct reuse 32
c. Recycling 32
5 Infrastructure and machinery (scope 3) 32
a. Infrastructure and capital items (scope 3) 32
Production of machinery/equipment 32
Carbon sink in wooden equipment (oak barrels, wooden posts, wooden structures) 33
6 Emissions related to cooling and refrigerating systems (scope 1) 33
7 Transport 34
a. General considerations: differences between enterprise and product protocols 34
b. Transport of goods 34
General recommendations 34
Transport modes and means used in the viticultural sector 35
Selection of available on-line tools for GHG emissions
estimations due to transport activities 35
c. Transport of people 37
Road transportation 37
Air transportation 37
Train 38
d Non-energy emissions during transportation 38
8 Purchased power utility (scope 2) 39
9 Inputs (scope 3) 39
a. Inputs in viticulture 39
Trellis structures 39
Fertiliser production 42
Production of phytosanitary products 42
b. Inputs in winemaking 43
c. Inputs for cleaning the winery 43
d. Inputs for bottling/packaging 43
e. Inputs for wine closures 44
f. Inputs for outer or transport packaging 45
g. Emission during vineyard development phase (first 3 years) 45

Chapter 3 What phase of production makes the most important contribution to

GHG emissions? 46

Bibliography 48

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 5
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Emission factors for carbon release or sink in the soil due to a land use change in France 16
Table 2: Default coefficients for above ground woody biomass and harvest cycles in cropping systems
containing perennial species (IPCC, 2006a) 17
Table 3: Carbon fraction of aboveground forest biomass (in tons of C of dry matter)(IPCC, 2006a) 18
Table 4: Ration of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass; tons of roots’ dry matter 19
Table 5: Default values for litter and dead wood carbon stocks (in tons C/ha) 20
Table 6: Carbon storage in a vineyard (vines, fruit, soil), example of a Californian vineyard (Keightley,
2011) 21
Table 7: Fossil fuel consumption default emission factors (well to wheel); (IPCC, 2006c) 26
Table 8: Emission factors for biofuels (transport) (BIOMASS Energy Centre, UK) 27
Table 9: Emission factors for biomass - heating and power. (BIOMASS Energy Centre, UK) 28
Table 10: GHG emissions from electricity production from renewable sources 29
Table 11: Emissions for waste treatment (ADEME, 2014) 31
Table 12: Calculation of « avoided emissions » due to recycling of metal, PET and paper (ADEME, 2014)
32
Table 13: Emission factors for trellis equipment (ADEME, 2014) 39
Table 14: Calculated carbon footprint (cradle to gate) for the most used N-fertilizers produced in different
global regions compared with figures from literature (Blonk et al., 2012) 40
Table 15: Emission factors for main fertilisers’ production 41
Table 16: Emission factors for phytosanitary products 42
Table 17: Emission factors for oenological products 42
Table 18: Emission factors for winery cleaning inputs 43
Table 19: Emission factors for bottling items 43
Table 20: Emission factors for wine closures 44
Table 21: Emission factors for outer and transport packaging 45

INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Evolution of carbon sink following a land use change 15
Figure 2: Variations in organic carbon sink depending on land use in France 16
Figure 3: Estimation of above ground vine perennial biomass 22
Figure 4: Potential of carbon storage over 20 years in the agricultural soils 23-24
Figure 5: EcoTransIT: example of utilisation for calculation of
GHG emissions for various transport modes 36
Figure 6: Input CO2 emission contribution (Zambrana et al., 2014) 47

6 I OIV Collective Expertise

ABBREVIATIONS
ABC Association Bilan Carbone (France) LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
ADEME French Agency for Environment and Energy LT Long term
Management
MC Moisture Content
BSR Business Social Responsibility (nonprofit
business network and consultancy, USA NMVOC Non-methane volatile organic compounds

CCWG Clean Cargo Working Group NVC Net Calorific Value

CLECAT European Association for Forwarding, OIV GHGAP OIV Greenhouse Gas Accounting
Transport, Logistics and Customs Services Protocol

ELCD European Life Cycle Database OIV International Organisation for Vine and Wine

FIVS Worldwide Federation for the Alcohol PE Polyethylene

Beverage Industry PET Polyethylene terephthalate
FNADE National Federation for Antipollution and PP Polypropylene
Environmental Activities (France) PS Polystyrene
GHG Greenhouse gas PVC Polyvinyl chloride
GIS Sol French Scientific Interest Group, established ST Short term
in 2001, managing an information system on the
soils of France tCeq/ha Ton of carbon equivalent per hectare

HFCs and PFCs hydrofluorocarbon; perfluorinated tCO2eq/ha Ton of carbon dioxide equivalent per
chemicals hectare

IEA International Energy Agency TEU Twenty-feet equivalent unit

IFEU Institute for Energy and Environmental TJ, MJ Terajoule, Megajoule

Research (Germany) UIC International Union of Railways
IFV French Wine and Vine Institute UNGDA National Union of Alcohol-Distillers Groups
INRA French National Institute for Agricultural (France)
Research WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Development

LCA Life cycle assessment WFA Winemakers Federation of Australia

LCI Life cycle inventory WRI World Resources Institute

WSTA Wine and Spirit Trade Association

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 7
 General considerations I Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Scope of the document The adoption of this resolution is a very important

step. Indeed, if determination of universal emission
values is a complicated task, the inventory of
At the General Assembly of Tbilisi, Georgia1 the OIV actions and inputs to be included in the protocol
decided to develop an International Protocol for needs to be as clear as possible and remain
the accounting of greenhouse gas emissions in comparable among different geographical zones.
grape and wine production (OIV GHG protocol).
The next step in this process is to provide
The general principles of the OIV GHG methodological guidance for enterprises wishing
protocol were set up in October 20112. The to conduct GHG balance accounting during the
general objective of the Protocol, is “to provide lifecycle of a product.
organisations, businesses and other stakeholders
with clear and consistent method for the complete We will present an overview of:
assessment of the GHG emissions associated with vine --Issues related to GHG accounting within an
and wine companies’ activities”. enterprise;
Specific objectives of the OIV GHG protocol are: --available databases and considerations on the
availability of data and on the management of
• To help companies working in the vitivinicultural
data uncertainty; and
sector to prepare a GHG inventory that represents
a true and fair account of their emissions, through --available methodologies for the estimation of
the use of standardized approaches and principles. emissions of unit process as mentioned in the OIV
GHG protocol as well as in benchmark values for
• To simplify and reduce the costs of compiling a
each category.
GHG inventory
• To provide business with information that can be 2. GHG accounting: before we
used to build an effective strategy to manage and
reduce GHG emissions start
• To increase consistency and transparency in
GHG accounting and reporting among various a. Why do we account for GHG balance?
companies and GHG programs.
Having set up the general principles of the OIV GHG GHG balance accounting is a management tool
protocol, the OIV defined recognised greenhouse which enables the identification, evaluation and
gases in the vine and wine sector and specified the quantification of major sources of GHG emissions.
inventory of emissions and sequestrations that
have to be taken into account while estimating This GHG emissions “picture” of the enterprise will
GHG emissions balance (resolution OIV-CST enable it to set realistic and scientifically based
503AB-2015). Based on the prescriptions of the objectives (both in terms of value and in terms
general principles, this resolution proposes a of time) for the reduction of GHG emissions. The
clear separation of the production process into feasibility of objectives should be considered with
identifiable units and specifies the scope of each of caution.
them.

1
Resolution OIV-CST-425/2010
2
Resolution OIV-CST 431/2011

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 9
Chapter 1 I General considerations

Both too optimistic and very low objectives may Indeed, the knowledge and experience gained
have a negative impact on the enterprise image. during a protracted GHG accounting process can be
For example, an enterprise wishing to become lost after a lapse of time.
carbon neutral in one year may be seen by some as
wishing to benefit solely from communicating on In general, at global level there is no obligation
GHG emission strategy at the expense of not being for GHG balance accounting for small companies.
able to achieve its environmental goals. In addition, Companies wishing to start GHG balance
an enterprise with very unambitious objectives accounting should consider the most appropriate
may also be considered negatively if it has not frequency for them depending on their objectives
established a specific policy or made considerable and communication strategy.
efforts to reduce GHG emissions. “Green washing”
is known to have been responsible for giving c. Exact value or approximation?
enterprises a negative image in several industrial
sectors. Obtaining an exact value may be extremely
difficult and costly, sometimes even impossible.
Once the objectives are set, a plan of action aimed The objectives of the enterprise in terms of GHG
at reducing GHG emissions can be established. footprint reduction should always be kept in mind.
Here again, GHG balance accounting can be In case the unit process is not considered by the
an appropriate management tool for enabling action plan of the enterprise (for example “land
management to track progress towards reducing use change” for an enterprise which has set a goal
GHG emissions. of 30% GHG emissions’ reduction from logistics
operations), the value should be estimated/
b. Frequency of GHG accounting obtained in the most simple or direct way.

The frequency of GHG balance accounting The difficulty or impossibility of obtaining the exact
should be considered with care. Indeed, some value of a unit process should not be an obstacle
countries have already started to set up regulatory or hinder the whole process of GHG footprint
requirements for GHG accounting (France, Loi reduction or sustainability approach.
n° 2010-788 12 July 2010 – Grenelle II, etc…) for
This document lists the most important databases
enterprises of more than 500 employees.
so far established that can be used for quantifying
The frequency of 3 years – chosen by France - is a GHG emissions in the viticultural sector. Included in
compromise between several factors: the document are guidelines for the quantification
of all unit processes considered by the OIV
• GHG balance accounting consumes resources: inventory of GHG (resolution OIV-CST 503AB-2014),
it has a cost and takes time. Required expertise modalities of attribution of each unit process to
is frequently not available in the enterprise. one of the three scopes (see below), eventual
Consultancy services from specialized enterprises difficulties in measuring or estimating the value,
are often required. Specific training for enterprise and finally, the availability of scientific data. The
staff is necessary. differences observed between the values in
• Changes in GHG emissions may not be visible different databases are also considered.
from year to year.
Nevertheless, experience gained from large
industrial companies which have implemented
GHG accounting for several years now shows that
a frequency of 3 years may be difficult to achieve.

10 I OIV Collective Expertise

 General considerations I Chapter 1

3. Boundaries of the system According to ISO 14064, scope 3 emissions are

not mandatory for the enterprise protocol.
Nevertheless, in the viticultural sector these
From cradle to grave
emissions are usually significant, especially, in cases
As described by the OIV GHG protocol3 : GHG where the enterprise purchases some of its grapes.
emissions should cover the whole life cycle of the According to resolution OIV-CST 431-2011, Scope
final product. 3 emissions shall be included depending on data
availability.
“From cradle to grave” principles are applied:
The choice of the scope should be explained and
--Enterprise protocol: from grape production to documented.
winemaking and packaging
--Product protocol: grape production, wine b. Product protocol
processing and packaging, distribution and retail,
end-life phase (including use phase) covering
Under the product protocol, the reduction of GHG
disposal and recycling.
emissions should be assessed for the life cycle of
a. Enterprise protocol: scope 1, 2 or 3? the product4. The unit processes should be detailed
(itemized) and grouped into life-cycle stages
(inputs and raw material acquisition, production,
Three scopes are usually considered for calculating
distribution, use and end of life). GHG emissions
a GHG footprint under the enterprise protocol.
and removals from the product’s life cycle should
In the vitivinicultual sector the OIV defines3 the be assigned to the life cycle stage in which the GHG
scopes as following: emissions and removals occur.
• Scope 1: direct GHG emissions. Direct Greenhouse
Gas emissions, or Scope 1 emissions, occur from 4. Available data for the vitivini-
items directly controlled by and owned by the cultural sector
company. This “control” means that the company
has the power to directly influence the GHG
emissions of the activity.
a. General considerations: adequacy of the
• Scope 2: Purchased power utility.
data
• Scope 3: indirect GHG emissions. For the vine
and wine industry, emissions categorised as Scope According to ISO 14067, site-specific data should
3, are emissions that occur as a consequence be collected for all individual processes under the
of producing a finished saleable vitivinicultural financial or operational control of the organization
product, emitted from equipment or plant owned undertaking the GHG balance calculations and shall
and controlled by another company, but on which be representative of the processes for which they
the enterprise retains an indirect control. are collected.

The overall scope of the GHG balance calculation Data quality should be characterized by both
method should be chosen taken into account the quantitative and qualitative aspects.
particularities of the enterprise and its production
process.

3
Resolution OIV CST 431-2011
4
ISO 14067

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 11
Chapter 1 I General considerations

Secondary data – which should be documented - --Time related representativeness

should only be used for inputs where the collection --Technological representativeness
of site-specific data is not possible or practicable, --Geographical representativeness
or for processes of minor importance, and may
include literature data, calculated data, estimates One of the examples of assessment process can
or other representative data. be given by the Product Environmental Footprint
(PEF) Guide (EC Joint Research Center, 2012), where
A GHG balance study should use data that reduce a clear classification and rating of data quality is
bias and uncertainty as far as practicable by using provided. Data are rated from 1 (very good) to 5
the best quality data available. (very poor) on six parameters.

Data quality requirements shall be specified c. Recommended databases

to enable the goal and scope of the Carbon
Footprint (CFP) study to be met. The data quality
All sources listed below comply with the following
requirements should address the following:
criteria:
--Time-related coverage
• they are publicly available;
--Geographical coverage
• can be directly used by GHG inventory developers
--Technology coverage: specific technology or (Databases that require companies to also
technology mix purchase consulting services or specific software
--Precision: measure of the variability of the data tools to access them are not included in the list);
values for each data expressed (e.g.: variance) and
--Completeness: percentage of the flow that is • for all sources an internet site exists where users
measured or estimated can review information related to the methodology
--Representativeness: qualitative assessment of and source of data.
the degree to which the dataset reflects the true • Information about access is included (free of
population of interest (geographical coverage, time charge, fee, necessity to register on the website,
period, technology used, etc…) etc…)
--Consistency
--Reproducibility The Greenhouse Gas Protocol and its
--Sources of the data recommended third party databases.
--Uncertainty of the information http://www.ghgprotocol.org

b. Data quality requirements The Greenhouse Gas Protocol was jointly adopted
in 1998 by the World Business Council for
Environmental science is a relatively new discipline Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the World
and the quality of data is continually evolving so Resources Institute (WRI).
it is essential for businesses to have access to The Corporate Standard of the GHG Protocol was
new developments if they are to be expected to considered as a basis for the ISO standard 14064-
substantiate claims. I: Specification with Guidance at the Organization
Data considered should be assessed regarding Level for Quantification and Reporting of
their: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals.

12 I OIV Collective Expertise

 General considerations I Chapter 1

The GHG Protocol provides a non-exhaustive list of EcoInvent - Switzerland

available third party databases, where the users
http://www.ecoinvent.ch/
can find data on product life cycle and corporate
value chain (scope 3) GHG inventories. EcoInvent - a not-for-profit association founded by
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
The list can be consulted on the following link:
(ETH Zurich) and Lausanne (EPF Lausanne), the
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/Third-Party-Databases Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), the Swiss Federal
Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology
Bilan Carbone® (FRANCE) and its Base Carbone (Empa), and Agroscope, Institute for Sustainability
database Sciences.

The Bilan Carbone® is a GHG methodology Several thousands of LCI datasets are available in
elaborated by the Association Bilan Carbone the areas of agriculture, energy supply, transport,
(ABC). This project has been selected by ADEME biofuels and biomaterials, bulk and specialty
to become the organization behind the chemicals, construction materials, packaging
most widely-used greenhouse gas emission materials, base and precious metals, metals
diagnostics system in France. processing, ICT and electronics as well as waste
treatment.
http://www.basecarbone.fr/
Free access is not available. Purchase of an annual
Bilan Carbone manages a national public database license is required.
containing a set of emission factors and their
sources of data. The database is intended to European Life Cycle Database (ELCD)
facilitate regulatory or voluntary Greenhouse Gases
accounting. This database is derived from historical The ELCD (European reference Life Cycle Database),
data of Bilan Carbone. first released in 2006, comprises Life Cycle
Inventory (LCI) data from front-running EU-level
Different levels of access and of service are business associations and other sources for key
available. Free access and the possibility of materials, energy carriers, transport, and waste
consulting quantitative data on emission factors in management. The respective data sets are officially
various areas can be accessed on the creation of provided and approved by the named industry
a user account, but there is a lack of data for the association.
viticultural sector.
The access to data is free, upon acceptance of a
For indirect emissions other than energy the license.
following data are available:
http://elcd.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/
• Transport of persons
• Transport of products IPCC
• Purchased goods (inputs and infrastructure) http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/software/index.
• Purchased services html
• Waste
• Agriculture and land use change And other databases and references on IPCC http://
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 13
 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2 CALCULATION OF GHG EMISSIONS/STORAGE BY

INVENTORY CATEGORY

This part of the document examines each unit The kinetics of the process varies over time. As
process considered by the OIV inventory of GHG shown on the graph below, during the first 20 years
emissions and sequestrations5. the speed of CO2 release is twice as high as the
speed of storage (Arrouays et al., 2002).
Examples of calculations and several benchmark
values are provided. Figure 1 Evolution of carbon sink following a land
use change
1. Vineyard (scopes 1 and 3) 95% Confidence interval for these values is + - 40%7
Carbon storage (tC/ha))
a. Land use changes

--Modification if the land use affects the following

pools of carbon: Cultivated - forest
--Soil organic carbon Cultivated - meadow
--Above-ground biomass
Forest - cultivated
--Below-ground biomass
Meadow - cultivated
--Litter6
Dead wood (in the case of deforestation before
conversion to vineyard)
Application period (years)
Finding exact data for carbon storage in the soil
Source : (Arrouays et al., 2002)
is not easy. The generation of data sources varies
geographically and depends on a number of
parameters, like soil quality, cultural practices,
density of plantation, etc… According to the general principles of
GHG accounting in the viticultural sector8
Direct measurement of carbon stored in the soil assessment of the impact of land use change
may be done before conversion to vineyard. should include:
Nevertheless, in most cases, estimation of carbon
storage in the newly planted vineyard remains the --all direct land use change occurring in the 20
most appropriate and practical approach. years prior to the assessment being carried
out
Evolution of carbon sink in the soil over time --One-twentieth (5%) of the total emissions
20 years: appropriate period for accounting and arising from the land use change shall be
amortization of carbon storage included in the GHG emissions of the company
in each year over the 20 years following the
Carbon stock in the soil is an important pool of change in land use.
carbon affected by the land use change.

Land use changes modify the carbon sink of the

soil. This may result in an emission of CO2 or CO2
capture. The storage / release of carbon caused by
soil condition change are phenomena that occur
over long periods.

5
Resolution OIV CST 503AB-2015
6
The litter layer-also known as the L and O horizons-is the layer of dead plant material that lies on top of the mineral soil. During forest regrowth, the
litter layer may accumulate rapidly, so changes in its carbon content are an important component of a total carbon inventory in ecosystems (Richter
and Markewitz, 1996). During a cycle of forest harvest followed immediately by regrowth, however, there is usually little overall change in carbon
storage in the forest floor (Johnson, 1992). IPCC
7
ADEME, Base Carbone
8
Resolution OIV CST 431 -2011

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 15
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

Proposed values and methodology for a reconversion to a vineyard

ADEME (France) has published (ADEME, 2014) the following data on carbon storage in differently occupied
soils:

Figure 2 Variations in organic carbon sink depending on land use in France

Estimate of carbon shared within the 30 first centimetres of soil

Organic matter stocks in forests, grasslands and low vegetation growing in highlands are
large, whereas stocks are quite low in vineyards, farmlands and Mediterranean zones.
Quantifying stocks is difficult in urban areas; nevertheless, a significant amount of carbon
could be stored under green spaces. carbon stored in forest litter is not taken into account.

Source : GIS sol; (ADEME, 2014)

These estimations are based on data published The whole file can be found: http://www.gissol.fr/
by GIS Sol (French Scientific Interest Group, donnees/tableaux-de-donnees/stock-de-carbone-
established in 2001, managing an information par-region-et-par-occupation-du-sol-3045.
system on the soils of France). The study is based
on data provided by the National Network of Based on the study conducted by INRA, ADEME
Measurement of the Soils Quality9. Carbon stocks (ADEME, 2014) proposes the following values
on 0-30 cm, for seven main types of land use, in that could be used for estimation of carbon stock
metropolitan France are provided in the dataset. changes in the soils:

Table 1 Emission factors for carbon release or sink in the soil due to a land use change in France

Peri-urban non Peri-urban

Cropland Meadow Forest
waterproofed waterproofed
Cropland -1.80±0.95 -1.61±0.88 0 190±80

Meadow 3.48±1.1 -0.37±0.73 0 290±120

Forest 2.75 0.37±0.37 0 290±120

*intCO2eq/ha
Source: ADEME Base Carbone

9
It should be stressed, that the data given are indicative and should be considered with care. In comparison to forests, orchards and meadows,
vineyard’ data are based on a much smaller samples (42 for vineyards, 884 for crops and 586 for forests).

16 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

As a first approximation, no change of soil carbon Therefore, carbon stock changes in above ground
stock is considered for the creation of a peri- biomass should only be accounted for when the
urban non waterproofed zone (park, garden, land use is changed:
lawn, stadium, etc…). By contrast, when water is --From orchards to vineyard
prevented from entering a soil (building, parking,
--From forest to vineyard
road, etc…) total destruction of carbon stock in the
soil is accounted for. --From vineyard/forest/orchard to peri-urban
waterproofed or not land (buildings, roads, car
Evolution of carbon sink in the above-ground parks, etc.).
biomass Some default values for above-ground woody
The change in biomass is only estimated for biomass are given in the tables here below (table 2
perennial woody crops. For annual crops, an and table 3):
increase in biomass stocks in a single year is
assumed equal to biomass loses from harvest
and mortality in the same year – thus there is no
net accumulation of biomass carbon stocks (IPCC,
2006a).

Table 2 Default coefficients for above ground woody biomass and harvest cycles in cropping systems
containing perennial species (IPCC, 2006a)

Default coefficients for above-ground woody biomass and harvest cycles in cropping systems containing perennial
species

Above-ground Biomass
Harvest / Biomass carbon
biomass carbon accumulation
Climate region Maturity cycle loss (L) (tonnes C Error range1
stock at harvest rate (G) (tonnes C
(yr) ha-1 yr-1)
(tonnes C ha1) ha-1 yr-1)
Temperature (all 63 30 2.1 63 ±75%
moisture regimes)
Tropical, dry 9 5 1.8 9 ±75%
Tropical, moist 21 8 2.6 21 ±75%
Tropical, wet 50 5 10.0 50 ±75%
Note: Values are derived from the literature survey and synthesis published by Schroeder (1994).
1
Represents a nominal estimate of error, equivalent to two times standard deviation, as a percentage of the mean.

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 17
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

Table 3 Carbon fraction of aboveground forest biomass (in tons of C of dry matter)(IPCC, 2006a)

Carbon fraction of above-ground forest biomass Tonnes C (Tonnes dry matter)-1

Domain Part of tree Carbon Fraction (FC) References

default value all 0.47 McGroddy et al. 2004

Tropical and Subtropical all 0.47 (0.44-0.49) Andreæ and Merlet 2001,

Chambers et al. 2001,

McGroddy et al. 2004,

Lasco and Pulhin 2003

wood 0.49 Feldpausch et al. 2004

wood, tree d < 10 cm 0.46 Hughes et al. 2000

wood, tree d ≥ 10 cm 0.49 Hughes et al. 2000

foliage 0.47 Feldpausch et al. 2004

foliage, tree d < 10 cm 0.43 Hughes et al. 2000

foliage, tree d ≥ 10 cm 0.46 Hughes et al. 2000

Temperature and Boreal all 0.47 (0.47-0.49) Andreæ and Merlet 2001,

Gayoso et al. 2002,

Matthews 1993,,

McGroddy et al. 2004

broad-leaved 0.48 (0.46-0.50) Lamlom and Savidge 2003

conifers 0.51 (0.47-0.55) Lamlom and Savidge 2003

18 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

Evolution of carbon sink in the below ground biomass

Below ground biomass in forests can be estimated using the following conversion
tables (IPCC, 2006a).

Table 4 : Ration of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass; tons of roots’ dry matter

Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass (R)

Domain Ecological zone Above-ground biomass R [tonne root References

d.m. (tonne
shoot d.m.)-1]

Tropical Tropicalrainforest 0.37 Fittkau & Klinge, 1973

Tropical moist deciduous above-ground biomass < 125 tonnes ha-1 0.20 (0.09 - 0.25) Mokany et al., 2006
forest
above-ground biomass > 125 tonnes ha -1
0.24 (0.22 - 0.33) Mokany et al., 2006
Tropical dry forest above-ground biomass < 20 tonnes ha-1 0.56 (0.28 - 0.68) Mokany et al., 2006
above-ground biomass > 20 tonnes ha -1
0.28 (0.27 - 0.28) Mokany et al., 2006
Tropical shrubland 0.40 Poupon, 1980
Tropical mountain systems 0.27 (0.27 - 0.28) Singh et al., 2006
Subtropical Subtropical humid forest above-ground biomass < 125 tonnes ha -1
0.20 (0.09 - 0.25) Mokany et al., 2006
above-ground biomass > 125 tonnes ha-1 0.24 (0.22 - 0.33) Mokany et al., 2006
Subtropical dry forest above-ground biomass < 20 tonnes ha -1
0.56 (0.28 - 0.68) Mokany et al., 2006
above-ground biomass > 20 tonnes ha-1 0.28 (0.27 - 0.28) Mokany et al., 2006
Subtropical steppe 0.32 (0.26 - 0.71) Mokany et al., 2006
Subtropical mountain no estimate
systems available
Temperate Temperate oceanic forest, conifers above-ground biomass 0.40 (0.21 - 1.06) Mokany et al., 2006
temperate continental < 50 tonnes ha-1
forest,Temperate
conifers above-ground biomass 0.29 (0.24 - 0.50) Mokany et al., 2006
mountain systems
50- 150 tonnes ha-1
conifers above-ground biomass 0.20 (0.12 - 0.49) Mokany et al., 2006
> 150 tonnes ha-1
Quercus spp. above-ground biomass 0.30 (0.20 - 1.16) Mokany et al., 2006
> 70 tonnes ha-1
Eucalyptus spp. above-ground biomass 0.44 (0.29 - 0.81) Mokany et al., 2006
< 50 tonnes ha-1
Eucalyptus spp. above-ground biomass 0.28 (0.15 - 0.81) Mokany et al., 2006
50- 150 tonnes ha-1
Eucalyptus spp. above-ground biomass 0.20 (0.10 - 0.33) Mokany et al., 2006
> 150 tonnes ha-1
other broadleaf above-ground biomass 0.46 (0.12 - 0.93) Mokany et al., 2006
< 75 tonnes ha-1
other broadleaf above-ground biomass 0.23 (0.13 - 0.37) Mokany et al., 2006
75- 150 tonnes ha-1
other broadleaf above-ground biomass 0.24 (0.17 - 0.44) Mokany et al., 2006
> 150 tonnes ha-1
Boreal Boreal coniferous forest, above-ground biomass 0.39 (0.23 - 0.96) Li et al., 2003; Mokany
Boreal tundra woodland, < 75 tonnes ha-1 et al., 2006
Boreal mountain systems
above-ground biomass 0.24 (0.15 - 0.37) Li et al., 2003; Mokany
> 75 tonnes ha-1 et al., 2006

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 19
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

Evolution of carbon sink in the litter and dead wood

IPCC (IPCC, 2006a) proposes the following values for litter and dead wood carbon
stocks:
Table 5 Default values for litter and dead wood carbon stocks (in tons C/ha)

Tier I Default values for litter and dead wood carbon stocks (tonnes C ha-1)

Climate Forest Type

Broadleaf Deciduous Needleleaf Evergreen Broadleaf Deciduous Needleleaf Evergreen

Litter carbon stocks of mature forests Dead wood carbon stocks of mature forests
(tonnes C ha-1) (tonnes C ha-1)
Boreal, dry 25 (10 - 58) 31 (6 - 86) n.a b n.a

Boreal, moist 39 (11 - 117) 55 (7 - 123) n.a n.a

Cold Temperate, dry 28 (23 - 33) 27 (17 - 42)a n.a n.a

Cold Temperate, moist 16 (5 - 31)a 26 (10 - 48)a n.a n.a

Warm Temperate, dry 28.2 (23.4 -33.0) 20.3 (17.3 -21.1) n.a n.a

Warm Temperate, 13 (2 - 31)a 22 (6 -42) n.a n.a

moist

Subtropical 2.8 (2 - 3) 4.1 n.a n.a

Tropical 2.1 (1 - 3) 5.2 n.a n.a

Source:
Litter: Note that these values do not include fine woody debris. Siltanen et al., 1997; and Smith and Heath, 2001; Tremblay et al., 2002; and
Vogt et al., 1996, coverted from mass to carbon by multiplying by conversion factor of 0.37 (Smith and Heath, 2001).
Dead Wood: No regional estimates of dead wood pools are currently available − see text for further comments
a Values in parentheses marked by superscript "a″ are the 5th and 95th percentiles from situations of inventory plots, while those without
superscript "a″ indicate the entire range.
b n.a. denotes ‘not available’

20 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

b. Carbon stored by the vine SHORT TERM (ST) carbon storage by the vine:
grapes; non-permanent vine growth
Overall importance of vine biomass in carbon Calculation of short term (ST) carbon storage by the
storage for the vineyard vine is optional. In cases where short term carbon
storage is accounted for, GHG emissions resulting
The quantity of carbon stored by vines depends on:
from biodegradation of vine structures in the soil
--Plant density should also be accounted for.
--Training and trellising system
--Vine-rootstock variety, There are only few data on carbon storage in non-
--Vigour, age and status of vineyard permanent vine structures. An approximation is often
--Irrigation and other cultural practices made that the balance of storage and emissions in one
year is zero.
(Keightley, 2011) proposes a valuation methodology
to measure carbon stock in a vineyard. The
following values have been found for a Californian IPCC (IPCC, 2006) uses this approximation.
vineyard planted with Sangiovese10.
The calculator elaborated by ADEME and IVF
According to the results obtained, vine wood (France) does not account for short term carbon
constitutes only 2% of the total vineyard carbon storage.
sink of.
Estimation of total carbon
Table 6 : Carbon storage in a vineyard (vines, fruit, stored in vines – LONG TERM CYCLE (LT)
soil), example of a Californian vineyard (Keightley,
Estimation of above ground vine perennial biomass
2011)
(LONG TERM - LT)
Organic Above ground vine perennial biomass can be
Biomass/ha % of total
carbon/ha calculated as:
Vines (wood) 4 102 kg 1 846 kg 1.8%

Fruit 13 500 kg 1 358 kg 1.3% above ground

perennial = wood density + wood volume
Soil 94 000 kg 96.9%
biomass
Total 97 000 kg 100.0%
The volume of the above ground wood can be
The vineyard was sampled with a terrestrial laser estimated by considering the vine as a cylinder.
scanning technique, paired with soil sampling and For a cordon training system, the vine can be
fruit yield. This provided a comprehensive spatial considered as two cylinders: trunk and cordon.
characterisation of vineyard carbon storage. Renewal parts (e.g. shoots or leaves) should be not
considered in this estimation.
This study found that vines averaged 1.93 kg of dry
biomass (0.87kg carbon) per plant. When combined The length and the width of each cylinder should be
with root biomass, vines constituted only 2% of measured.
the total perennial vineyard carbon (including soil
carbon storage).
volume of 1/4 π × length width of the
Some methodological suggestions for the trunk = of trunk × trunk2
estimation of carbon stored by the vine set out
below
10
Characteristics of the site:
- Vine variety: Sangiovese
- Age of the vines: 8 years old at the time of the study, 2006
- Training system: bilateral cordons and spur pruned
- Vineyard spacing: 1.83 m in a raw and 3.66 between row
- Soil: identified as Dierssen clay loam (Durixeroll) and managed with shallow tillage two to three times per year to control weed and incorporate
pruning waste

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 21
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

The volume of cordon can be calculated with the Mass above ground is composed of the trunk and
same formula. cordon; roots constitute 30% of vine total perennial
biomass (1-1/1.42=29.5%).

above ground volume of volume of Calculation of total carbon stored in vines (LT)
= + Schlesinger, 1997) provides a carbon content of
volume of vine trunk cordon
45% of dry weight of vine wood.

Carbon stored in vines can be therefore estimated

Figure 3 : estimation of above ground vine
from the measure of above-ground vine perennial
perennial biomass
biomass as follows:

Biomass above
C total vine = 1.42 × 0.45 ×
ground

Vine biomass above ground can be estimated or

measured. Total carbon storage per hectare can
then be calculated by multiplying by the number of
plants per hectare.
The dry biomass needs to be determined after the Permanent and incremental storage or loss of
total volume is calculated; to do this the vine wood
carbon due to vineyard and soil management
density has to be determined.
(LONG TERM CYCLE)
In one particular case, the vine wood density Annual growth can be measured by comparison
was determined as 0.95g dry weight/cm3 fresh between vine biomass in the vineyard of the
volume11 (Williams et al., 2011). previous year with the actual year.
Vine wood density does not vary significantly with
the age of the vine or with the vine variety. In the
absence of site specific data this value can be used annual growth = vine biomassn - vine biomassn-1
as standard.
Estimation of the total perennial vine biomass (above
and below ground) Or estimated (assuming linear evolution) according
to the formula:
While it is possible to measure and estimate vine
above ground biomass, it is difficult to measure
directly the below-ground vine biomass without 1
destroying the plant. annual growth = × vine biomass n
n
Several references (Mullins et al., 1992),
(Clingeleffer and Krake, 1992), (Williams and Biscay, Carbon storage in the soil can be increased by soil/
1991) provide the following relationship between crop management. Keightley, 2011) In order to
above and below-ground vine perennial biomass: return higher amounts of organic matter to the
soil, it is necessary to favour soil cover by including
intermediate crops in the rotation and grassing
whole vine biomass above between the rows in vineyards and orchards.
= 1.42 ×
biomass ground
The following figure shows the potential units of
carbon storage over 20 years in the INRA study, in
tCeq/ha·per year.((Arrouays et al., 2002); (ADEME,
2014))
11 Chardonnay vine, California organic vineyard

22 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

Figure 4 : Potential of carbon storage over 20 years in the agricultural soils (continues next page)

Source : GIS sol; (ADEME, 2014)

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 23
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

Figure 4 : Potential of carbon storage over 20 years in the agricultural soils (continuation)

Source : GIS sol; (ADEME, 2014)

c. Biodegradation of vine structures Based on a publication (Bouwman, 1996) and
in the soil actualised following the publication (Stehfest
and Bouwman, 2006), the IPCC established (IPCC,
2006b) a default methodology (tier 1) for the
In case carbon sequestration in vine biomass
estimation of N2O emissions from soil:
(Short Term Cycle) is accounted for, GHG emissions
relating to biodegradation of vine structures in the • N2O emissions from soil are due exclusively to the
soil should also be taken into consideration. application of fertilizers and to the degradation of
plants residues in the soil
If ST carbon storage in vines is not taken into • Total emissions are equal to 1% of the N
consideration (cf. 1.b), accounting for emissions introduced to the system (fertilizers + residues)
relating to biodegradation of vine structures in the
soil is recommended, but not mandatory12. 0.01
N-N2O (N synthetic fertilizers + N
d. N2O emissions resulting from nitrogen =
(kg/ha/year) organic ferilizers + N plants
fertilization residues)

N2O flows are not easy to measure or estimate. At this stage, few countries have available data and
A lot of parameters can influence the emissions more detailed estimations are recommended.
(climate, type of soil, etc…).

12
resolutions OIV-CST 2015-503AB; OIV-CST 2012-431

24 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

IPCC has developed a specific calculator for the Two types of calculations are possible: when the
estimation of N2O emissions from soil from amount of fuel is known (this is usually the case
nitrogen fertilisation: https://discover.amee. for vineyard owned equipment) and when the
com/categories/Fertilizer_associated_soil_N2O_ amount of fuel is not known (usually, by external
emissions/data/calculator contractors).

Alternatively, (Lesschen et al., 2011) worked on the For traceability and management accounting
differentiation of nitrous oxide emission factors for reasons, it is recommended to separate fuel
agricultural soils. Type of soil and annual rainfall consumption into different units and at least two
were considered to calculate N2O emissions. categories should be considered:
--Emissions from vineyard operations
e. CH4 emissions from soil
--Emissions from winery operations

CH4 (methane) emissions from upland soils (i.e. in More detailed classification can be done, provided
aerobic conditions) are negative or close to zero, data are available and of good quality.
therefore, vineyards do not produce methane,
Separation under several categories will allow the
but oxidize CH4 to CO2. That level of oxidation is
enterprise to see more clearly the evolution of GHG
reduced by N-fertilizing, and can be considered as
emissions from year to year and thus to adjust
negligible (Roger and Le Mer, 2003).
management practices.

2. On-site fuel used Amount of fuel consumed is known

(scope 1 and 3) (scope 1 or 3)
Calculation modalities
a. Emissions from fossil sources When information on the quantity of fuel
consumed is available, the following equation,
Under this item, all fuel used directly or indirectly proposed by the IPCC (IPCC, 2006c) should be used:
by the enterprise for machinery (tractors, forklifts,
harvesting machinery, bottling machinery, boilers,
etc…) are considered. GHG Emissions = ∑ [Fuel a,b * EF a,b]
a, b
Emissions arising from the use of fuel for transport
activity should be accounted using the same
methodology, but reported separately. Emissions Where
arising from transport activities are discussed • a: type of fuel (e.g; petrol, diesel, natural gas, LPG,
under the points 7.a and 7. b. etc…)
• b: machinery type
Scope 1: Fuel used by machinery owned • Fuel a,b: Quantity of energy contained in the fuel
by the enterprise, a and consumed by the machinery b, measured in
megajoules (MJ).)
Scope 3: Fuel used by rented equipment, • EFa: emission factor of the fuel a, measured in
as well as fuel used by an external kilograms of CO2eq by megajoule (kg/MJ). This is
contractor in vineyard operations. equal to the carbon equivalent content of fuel per
megajoule multiplied by 44/12 (relative molecular
mass of CO2 divided by relative molecular mass of
carbon).

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 25
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

The EF emission factor takes account of all the to the use of this standard are described in details
carbon in the fuel including that emitted as CO2, in the guide “Calculating GHG emissions for freight
CH4, CO, NMVOC. forwarding and logistics service” published by
CLECAT (European Association for Forwarding,
Fuel a,b is obtained by multiplying the quantity of Transport, Logistics and Customs Services) in April
fuel used (in tons) by the Net Calorific Value of the 2012 (CLECAT, 2012).
fuel a (NCV), measured in megajoules by ton.
If available, country specific values should be used
GHG emissions from fuel combustion are both for NCV and emission factors. Countries
influenced by two fuel parameters: energy content publish these values in specific reports:
(Net Calorific Value – NCV) and its carbon content.
• AUSTRALIA: National Greenhouse Accounts
Values for emission factors and Net Calorific Value Factors, Table 3 http://www.environment.gov.au/
Fuel specific values can be found in different system/files/resources/b24f8db4-e55a-4deb-a0b3-
sources. 32cf763a5dab/files/national-greenhouse-accounts-
factors-2014.pdf
IPCC publishes default values: • Etc…
• NCV default values can be found in the table 1 of The following table presents a compilation of
the Chapter 1 of (IPCC, 2006c), emission factors and NCV for road transport
• Default values for emission factors can be found published in the (IPCC, 2006c), chapters 1 and 3.
in the Chapter 3 MOBILE COMBUSTION of the It should be noticed that original data present also
(IPCC, 2006c). the low and upper limits for each value. The data
Emission factors have been harmonized at here below are given as indicative values and it
European level into the new standard EN is thus recommended to consult the IPCC report
16258 “Methodology for the calculation and data base, as well as national sources before
and declaration of energy consumption starting the inventory.
and greenhouse gas emissions of transport
services”. (EN 16258, 2012). Practical issues related

Table 7 Fossil fuel consumption default emission factors (well to wheel); (IPCC, 2006c):

NCV (TJ/Gg), Gg = 103

Fuel type Kg CO2 /TJ Kg CH4/TJ Kg N2O/TJ
ton
Motor Gasoline 69300 33 3.2 44.3

Gas / Diesel Oil 74100 3.9 3.9 43

Liquefied Petroleum Gas 63100 62 0.2 47.3

Compressed Natural Gas 56100 92 3 48

Kerosene 71900 43.8

Liquefied Natural Gas 56100 92 3 48

Lubricants 73300 40.2

26 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

Amount of fuel consumed is not known Emissions from biomass and biofuels:
(scope 3) production and transport
This situation is not frequent in the viticultural Life cycle assessment (LCA) approach should be
sector and occurs when soil works are applied here.
subcontracted. If it is not possible to obtain reliable
data from the subcontractor on the fuel consumed, Only emissions arising from the production and
estimations can be done based on the following transport of the biofuel should be accounted for.
parameters: Emissions from the combustion of biofuels are not
included.
--Type of equipment
--Load factor --Biofuel
--Type of fuel Viticultural enterprises rarely produce biofuel. In
--Power case of utilization of biofuel for various needs of
--Hours of work the company, emission factors should be requested
--…. from the fuel provider. Below are some examples
of values for various types of biofuel. The values
General information is available in the IPCC are provided by the Biomass Energy Centre (UK
recommendations on energy (IPCC, 2006c). government information centre for the use of
biomass for energy in the UK).
The calculator developed by Winemakers
Federation of Australia (WFA) proposes some http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/
default values, as well as a simple to use exce portal/page?_pageid=75,163182&_dad=portal&_
file allowing the estimation of GHG emissions schema=PORTAL
from fuel consumed, when the quantities are not
known: http://www.wfa.org.au/resources/carbon-
calculator/.

Table 8 Emission factors for biofuels (transport) (BIOMASS Energy Centre, UK)

Approx. life cycle

Net Calorific Energy density
Fuel Carbon Content GHG emissions
Value (MJ/kg) (MJ/L)
(gCO2eq/L)
Bioethanol (from sugar beet) 27 21 52% 724

Bioethanol (from wheat) 27 21 52% 511

Biodiesel (from rapeseed oil) 37 33 77% 1334

Biodiesel (from waste vegetable oil) 37 33 77% 437

Petrol 44 32 87% 2600

Diesel 42.8 36 86% 3128

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 27
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

--biomass provided by the Biomass Energy Centre (UK

If vegetal material is used for heat production government information centre for the use of
(pruning wood), CO2 emissions occurring during biomass for energy in the UK).
production of biomass can be calculated, see part http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/
1.a. portal/page?_pageid=75,163182&_dad=portal&_
Emissions of GHG due to the production of schema=PORTAL.
viticultural biomass should not be double-counted. These figures for wood pellets include the hammer
• If the biomass used results from long-term CO2 mill and pelleting process, however do not include
accumulation (vine wood): emissions from wood sourcing the feedstock and any pre-processing such
burning should be accounted for. as drying. If starting from green wood then drying
• The biomass used results from short-term cycle could be a very major component, however pellets
growing (pruning cane), emissions from burning are often made from dry waste wood that has been
should not be accounted for. dried for another purpose, such as joinery. These
figures also do not include transport (which is
Here below are presented some default values
of emission factors for biomass. The values are included in the figures for wood chips).

Table 9 Emission factors for biomass - heating and power. (BIOMASS Energy Centre, UK)

Approx. life cycle CO2 emissions

Carbon (including production)
Net Calorific
Fuel for heating and power Content
Value (MJ/kg)
Kg CO2eq/GJ Kg CO2eq/MWh

Wood chips (25% MC13 ) 14 37.5% 5 18

Wood pellets (10% MC starting from dry wood waste) 17 45% 4 15

from dry wood waste)

Wood pellets (10% MC starting from green wood using 17 45% 22 80

gas)

Grasses/straw (15% MC)oil) 14.5 38% 1.5 to 4 5.4 to 15

13
MC: Moisture Content

28 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

3. Electricity production in-situ:

photovoltaic panels, wind generators (scope 3)
Emissions due to the production, operation needs
and disposal of equipment (Life Cycle Assessment
approach) should be considered. Emission
factors depend on the technology used and
geographical location. The following table presents
recommended emission factors:

Table 10 GHG emissions from electricity production from renewable sources

Emissions (in
Type of generator Source Comments
kgCO2eq/kWh)
Photovoltaic 0.055 ADEME (2014) For Europe

0.053 (Hondo, 2005) For Japan

0.039 (de Wild-Scholten et al., 2014) Australia

0.089 (de Wild-Scholten et al., 2014) Iceland

Wind 0.007 ADEME (2014) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis shows
that for a modern wind generator working in
Northern Europe (inland) the average GHG
emission factor would be of 4.8 g CO2eg/kWh.
This value is highly dependent on the load
factor of the generator during the year. It is
recommended to retain the value of 7 g CO2eg/
kWh

Geothermic 0.045 ADEME (2014)

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 29
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

4. Waste disposal, reuse and • Transversal GHG emissions

recycling (scope 1 and 3) Transversal emissions are common to all waste and
are caused by the transport of waste and by the
operation of the waste treatment plant.
Waste produced should be categorised by quantity
and type. Waste disposal and treatment carried It is difficult to give an exact value for these
out by the company itself (compost for example) emissions. Companies usually have no control over
should be considered under scope 1. how the waste is treated and can hardly improve its
GHG emissions from waste treatment. Therefore
Total
% treatment % treatment an approximation should be considered.
Type of by the outside the
Quantity
waste company company ADEME (2014) proposes to use the following values
(tons/year)
(Scope 1) (Scope 3)
(FNADE and Bio Intelligence Service, 2008)
Plastic
--Waste transport: 18 kg CO2/ton of waste
Glass
--Emissions related to the operation of waste
Other treatment plant:
mineral
(metal,
• Incinerator: 18 kg CO2/ton of waste
etc…) • Landfill: 15 kg CO2/ton of waste
Paper/ Estimations can also be done using the approach
cardboard described in 7.a (emission factors per kg*km)
Food waste
(including Some datasheets include these emissions in the
wine) total waste treatment emission value. Care should
Waste be taken not to account for these emissions twice.
water
• Emissions by type of treatment and type of waste
It is difficult to provide universal data for all
Waste disposal undertaken by municipal services countries. Values depend on the waste treatment
should be accounted for under scope 3. technology, transport options, valorization mix,
etc…
a. Waste disposal and treatment
ADEME (2014) has published the following data for
waste treatment emissions:
GHG emissions during waste disposal and
treatment depend on the country/region Only fossil CO2 is taken into account. Biogenic
specificities in the modalities of waste treatment CO2 is not included. Data include waste transport
and valorization. Country specific mix values for emissions and emissions from operating the waste
recycling, incineration, composting etc… should be treatment facility. Average values are given for
considered. France’s average mix for waste treatment.

30 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

Table 11. Emissions for waste treatment (ADEME, 2014)

Incineration Landfill storage Compost

Type of waste Average (kgCO2eq/ton)
(kgCO2eq/ton) (kgCO2eq/ton) (kgCO2eq/ton)

Organic waste

Paper 46.6 1020 86.7 43.1

Cardboard 46.6 983 86.7 37.9

Food waste (including wine) 46.6 649 86.7 48.1

Plastic waste

Average plastic 2680 33 - 877

PET 1990 -

PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) 1440 -

PE (polyethylene) 2910 -

PS (polystyrene) 3140 -

PP (polypropylene) 3020 -

Mineral waste

Glass 46.6 33 -

Metal 46.6 33 -

Waste water 0.262 (kg CO2eq/m3) -

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 31
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

b. Direct reuse Example of calculation:

10 tons of steel produced from 60% of recycled

Emissions of all GHG should be accounted for. material and 40% of raw material is recycled.
Special attention should be paid to CH4 and N2O
emissions. Avoided emissions are: 40%*10*2090 = 8360
kgCO2, or 836kgCO2/ton of material
c. Recycling
5. Infrastructure and machinery
Paper/cardboard, PET, glass and metals are
recyclable.
(scope 3)
Recycling of waste materials generates “avoided” a. Infrastructure and capital items (scope 3)
emission. Indeed, recovered material is used to
produce new products thus limiting the use of raw
materials. Emissions from production of the new Production of machinery/equipment
materials are thus reduced. Emissions related to infrastructures, machinery
and, in general, capital items are included in
Avoided emission factors can be calculated as
the secondary boundaries of the Enterprise
(examples of values, ADEME, 2014)
Protocol (scope 3), when they make a material
Table 12 : Calculation of « avoided emissions » contribution. Due to the longevity of wine sector
due to recycling of metal, PET and paper (ADEME, infrastructure and machinery and their consequent
2014) relative small contribution to the product carbon
footprint, they should be, in
Emission factor general, excluded from the
Emission factor Avoided
for production Product Protocol14.
for production emissions due
Material from recycled
from raw material to recycling
(kgCO2eq/ton)
material
(kgCO2eq/ton)
Repair and maintenance work to
(kgCO2eq/ton) capital items are also included in
Metal (Fe) 3190 1100 2090 the secondary boundaries14.

Emissions related to fuel and

PET 3263 202 3062 energy consumption by the
machinery and infrastructure
Paper/cardboard To be updated To be updated To be updated
should not be accounted
for under this item, as they
are accounted for under the
categories “on-site fuel used” and
“purchased power utility”.
While calculating “avoided emissions”, only the non- More generally, under this point we consider only
recycled part of the material should be taken into the emissions from the fabrication/construction
consideration. Otherwise the benefit is accounted of infrastructure and machinery. For this reason,
for twice. an adapted system of amortization, taking into
account the lifetime of equipment/infrastructure
under consideration, should be introduced.

14
Resolution OIV-CST 431-2011, I.6 and II.6

32 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

Few data are available in the literature regarding 6. Emissions related to cooling
the production of machinery. ADEME proposes to
consider a rough approximation here by taking and refrigerating systems
the same value as the one assumed for transport (scope 1)
vehicles production: 5.5 tons CO2eq/ton of
machine. Under this item we consider specific CO2 and
This value should be amortised for the life period of non CO2 emissions occurring during refrigeration
equipment (usually 10 years). and cooling. Emissions related to energy and fuel
consumption are not accounted for here as they
In any case, machinery consumes fuel and have already been accounted for under “on-site
electricity and in general GHG emissions related to fuel used” and “purchased power utility”.
the operations of machinery are largely higher that
the ones due to the production of equipment. More specifically, fugitive gases from cooling
systems, as well as dry ice utilization are accounted
Carbon sink in wooden equipment (oak barrels, for here. CO2 emissions from dry ice: CO2 emissions
wooden posts, wooden structures) from production and use of dry ice should be
• Emissions during the production process accounted for.

It is difficult to provide exact data for emissions Dry ice can be produced in different ways; it
arising during various phases of production of can be collected as a by-product in a chemical
barrels and other wooden objects. Emissions from process (ammonia production process), biological
bucking, skidding, timber, transportation, etc., process (fermentation) or recovered from natural
should be accounted for. ADEME (2014) gives an sources. In these cases, only the GHG emitted by
approximation of 36.6 kg CO2eq/ton of wooden the gathering process shall be accounted. (Most
product. common case)

Similar data can be found in ELCD If the dry ice is produced by combustion of oil or
gas with dry-ice production as only purpose, the
• Considering carbon storage
amount of CO2 emitted by combustion should be
Wooden items could be considered as a carbon accounted for, in addition to the GHG emitted by
sink. Nevertheless, the carbon sink is real only if the production process. This production method is
the carbon is stored for a long period of time and if common in Asia.
the trees are replanted (i.e. if the wood is managed
sustainably). Source: http://ecojetinc.com/ecopress/wp-content/
uploads/2012/10/EIGA-Environmental-Impact.pdf
According to the OIV GHGAP15, the carbon sink Emission factors for fugitive gases can be found in
can be accounted for if the wooden items have the 4th (2007) and 5th (2013) IPCC reports17.
a life of more than 20 years. ADEME (2015)
provides the value of carbon sink of 1850 kg
CO2eq/ton of wooden product16.

15
OIV-CST 431-2011: General principles of the OIV greenhouse gas accounting protocol for the vine and wine sector
16
ADEME considers that a life of 100 years is required for wooden products to be considered as carbon sink
17
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 33
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

7. Transport Product protocol:

All movements occurring during the life cycle of

a. General considerations: differences vitivinicultural product should be accounted for
between enterprise and product protocols (grape production, wine processing, distribution
and retail, end-life):
According to the "Greenhouse gases accounting ¾¾Movements of products:
in the vine and wine sector – recognised gases ◦◦Transport of inputs from their purchase point to
and inventory of emissions and sequestrations" their place of use
resolution (OIV-CST 503AB/2015), the following
◦◦Transport activities in the vineyard and during the
activities should be taken into consideration under
wine making process
the product and enterprise protocols:
◦◦Transport of waste or residues to a disposal
Enterprise protocol: centre
◦◦Transport of by-products (Transport for reuse
All movements within the company boundaries are
purposes, as grape marc for distillation or pruned
included in the Enterprise Protocol18
canes (for compost or biomass) from the winery are
¾¾Movements of products included, if under the direct control of the company
◦◦All transport activities in the vineyard and during producing the by-product. If not, they are excluded,
the winemaking process (inputs, waste, residues, as they are part of a new product life cycle).
by-products and the products themselves, like ◦◦Transport of the finished wine from the winery to
wine, grapes, etc.) the retailer or consumer.
◦◦Transport of the wine from the winery to the ◦◦Transport of waste or residues to a recycling
customer or the consumer. The company boundary centre.
will fix the limit of the inclusion of emissions. In ¾¾Movement of People
general, the final point is the retailer or the tax
◦◦Included:
warehouse. In the case of internet wine selling, the
transport/mailing of the wine until the consumer ▪▪movement of employees during the
will be included vitivinicultural process inside the company
¾¾Movements of people ◦◦Excluded:
◦◦Transport of employees during winemaking ▪▪Business travel (if not directly linked to the
process winemaking process)
◦◦Excluded: transport of employees to their place ▪▪Travel of employees to their place of work
of work ▪▪Transport of consumer to and from the
◦◦Business travels point of retail purchase
◦◦Excluded: Transport of the consumer to the place b. Transport of goods
of retail
These activities are accounted for under Scope 1 if General recommendations
the transport vehicle is under company ownership
or control and under scope 3 otherwise. The following recommendations apply to all means
of transport and should be taken into account
when calculating emissions from transportation:

18
OIV-CST 431-2011: General principles of the OIV greenhouse gas accounting protocol for the vine and wine sector

34 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

a) For owned vehicles, emissions due to fuel etc.), off-road (tractors in the vineyard, etc.),
consumption should be accounted for and related railways, water-borne navigation and air.
to emission standards (the default values depend
on the region of origin of the emissions: Europe Transport modes and means used in the
Euro classes, USA EPA classes, Japan JP classes). It viticultural sector
is preferable to use data of quantity of consumed Transport modes:
fuel, or, alternatively, mileage).
b) For third party vehicles, travel data are to be --Water-borne (deep/short sea, river barge)
accounted for according to: type of vehicle, load --Road and off road
capacity (train, ship, or gross weight class for truck, --Airfreight
etc.), emission standard, load factor (the load factor --Rail freight
defines the weight, based on freight type and
Container equipment:
percent load of the vehicle), empty trip factor (km
empty/km loaded), destination and typical route. --Dry
c) in accordance with ISO and European standards --Reefer
(EN 16258, 2012) the following should also be --Dry Insulated
considered : --Flexitank (for moving bulk wine)
◦◦enterpise protocol: direct emissions (tank to --Tanker vessel (for moving bulk wine)
wheel)
Selection of available on-line tools for GHG
◦◦product protocol:
emissions estimation due to transport activities
▪▪direct (tank to wheel)
Exact calculation of CO2 emissions during
▪▪and indirect or upstream emissions (“well to transportation is very complex. A number of
tank”) emissions during the transport of crude professional organizations are working on these
oil to the refining plant before the refining issues all over the world.
process followed by distribution of the fuel
itself, before it is used by vehicles, A selection of the most complete and
TEU: commonly accepted unit of measure in wine internationally validated calculators of CO2
logistics emissions for logistics is proposed:
The following units of transport are usually EcoTransIT
considered:
Applicable for following transport modes
TEU: twenty-feet equivalent unit
Road
--Bottled wines: 10 tons TEU in dry/ insulated/
Rail
reefer containers
Air
--Bulk wine: Flexitank or ISO tank of 24 tons = 2.4
Water
TEU of 10 tons19.
Calculation by sections is recommended
EcoTransIT World calculates environmental impacts
The best way of calculating emissions arising from of different carriers across the world. This is
transport activities is to separate the emissions possible due to an intelligent input methodology,
by sections (also called legs of a journey), i.e. road large amounts of GIS-data and an elaborate basis
(company cars, highway road transfer of products, of computation.

19
Clean Cargo Working Group would in principle allow the application of a “rule by 3” to calculate CO2 emissions of Flexitank (24 tons average). As a
result CO2 emissions of Flexitank 24 tons = CO2 emissions of 2.4 TEUs x 10 tons (CCWG TEU definition)

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 35
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

Data and methodology are scientifically funded Itineraries can be adjusted: the user can choose to
and transparent for all users. Regular updates are indicate a simple path “To-From” or detail the route
conducted both on data and methodology. by indicating “via” locations.

EcoTransIT® World is controlled and financed Maritime trade lane emissions: Clean Cargo Working
by the EcoTransIT® World Initiative (EWI). The Group
technical implementation is done by the consulting
company IVE GmbH in Hanover, whereas the Applicable for following transport modes
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
IFEU (Heidelberg, Germany) and INFRAS (Bern, Sea
Switzerland) are responsible for the computation
methodology and emission factors.
Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG)20 has
EcoTransIT calculator is available for free via the developed tools and methods to calculate the
website http://www.ecotransit.org/ CO2 footprint for a single shipment or a total
transportation company, and to assess supplier
Road, rail and air transportation emissions can be environmental performance.
calculated and compared. The user can include
information on load and empty trip factors. Data CCWG focuses on sea emissions calculation
on different emission standards are available (Euro, with focus on CO2 and SOx. The underlying
EPA, JP). methodologies for collecting data are different
between CCWG and EcoTransIT.
Different types of planes, vessels and trains can be
used. Every year CCWG collates individual vessel data
(Excel sheets) from sea carriers. EcoTransIT
Figure 5 EcoTransIT: example of utilisation emissions data are calculated from scientific/
for calculation of GHG emissions for various university sources.
transport modes
For EcoTransIT the frequency of update varies
according to transport mode (e.g. rail in 2013, sea
in 2014); and the update does not happen every
year but less often.

CCWG is sponsored by BSR (Business Social

Responsibility, an NGO of Californian origin).

Useful reports:
• CCWG Progress Report 2015 (August 2015)21.
This report provides aggregate average trade lane
emissions factors for the years 2009-2014. The list
of companies that have provided their data is also
indicated. This data can be used to refine results
obtained with EcoTransIT.
• How to Calculate and Manage CO2 Emissions from
Ocean Transport (February 2015)22.

20
http://www.bsr.org/
21
https://www.bsr.org/our-insights/report-view/clean-cargo-working-group-progress-report-2015
22
http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_CCWG_Calculate_Manage_Emissions_2015.pdf

36 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

Useful calculators: place of work, as well as transport of consumers

to the place of retail are excluded both from
The list is non-exhaustive and other calculators may enterprise and product protocols23.
be included
FIVS GHG emissions calculator Road transportation
Usually, the quantity of fuel consumed is known
for the vehicles owned by the company. The same
Applicable for following transport modes
methodology as the one mentioned under point 2.a
Sea (on site fuel used).
Road
Rail In case of rented vehicles or services bought (motor
coaches, taxi, etc.) estimations should be done:
Air
--Distances travelled
https://fivs.org/wm/strategicInitiatives/fivsForesee. --Fuel consumption
htm Emission factors of the fuel can be found in the
Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) carbon Table 7.
calculator
Air transportation
Applicable for following transport modes This means of transport is one of the most “heavy”
ones in terms of GHG emissions and one of the
Sea most complicated ones in terms of calculations. A
Road number of calculation models exist and could be
Rail used for the OIV GHGAP.
Air
Emissions depend on the type of plane, emission
factor of the fuel and on the route taken. Usually
The UK trade (WSTA) has developed a tool for airline companies provide data on CO2 emissions
calculating GHG emissions for the movement of per passenger for each journey
goods from winery to warehouse, often over very
large distances. The calculation methodology Preference should be given to calculators provided
for sea routes is updated every year to ensure by the airline companies that carried out the flight.
alignment with the Clean Cargo Working Group. The data provided are more accurate, as they take
into account the type of plane and fuel used by the
http://www.wsta.co.uk/resources/carbon-calculator company. Generic calculators, giving information
Other calculators? without taking into account the airline company, do
not account for all relevant information.
c. Transport of people International Civil Aviation Organization has
developed a calculator for carbon dioxide
Only emissions from transport during business emissions from air travel:
travel should be accounted here. Emissions arising
from transport of employees from home to the http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/
CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx

23
Resolution OIV-CST 431-2011

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 37
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

Train To obtain the exact emission factor, the origin and

production method of electricity produced need
In case of transport by train, data on GHG can be
to be known. These data are usually provided by
provided in order of preference by:
the local supply network. Estimation models exist,
--The transportation company, that sometimes based on the technologies used in the country,
provides the CO2 emissions for the travel or quantity of energy sold and bought outside the
emissions per km. network.
--Government’ organisations calculating data on
national train transport emissions. GHG protocol proposes a specific tool for
--IEA/UIC’s yearly publications of data on CO2 calculation of GHG emissions from purchased
emissions: it is available for many countries power electricity. The tool takes into account all
(depending on the year). For other countries, if no available emission factors by country and region
national data is available, world average data can (emission factor sources: IEA and IPCC): http://www.
be taken as an estimate. Data available on yearly ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools
published Railway Handbook (IEA, 2015). More detailed and updated information on a
http://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/iea-uic_2015-2.pdf regional level can be found directly from the
company producing power utility. Here below some
d. Non-energy emissions during examples of national sources:
transportation • FRANCE (Réseau de transport d’électricité) : http://
www.rte-france.com/
Non-energy emissions result from the • ITALY (Italian Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-
air conditioning and refrigerated mobile 2014. National Inventory Report 2016”): http://
transportation. This is relevant for the vine and www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti/
wine sector, since the grapes and wines are often italian-greenhouse-gas-inventory-1990-2014.-
transferred under cooler temperatures. Some national-inventory-report-2016
guidance is provided in the Volume 3, Chapter • SPAIN (The National Commission of Markets
7, Table 7.8 of the IPCC Guidelines (IPCC, 2006), and Competition): http://gdo.cnmc.es/CNE/
regarding HFCs and PFCs. resumenGdo.do?anio=2013
• AUSTRALIA (The Government of Australia -
8. Purchased power utility Department of Climate Change and Energy
(scope 2) Efficiency): http://www.climatechange.gov.au/
climate-change/greenhouse-gas-measurement-
and-reporting/tracking-australias-greenhouse-
The emission factor for the purchased power utility gas-emissions/national-greenhouse-accounts-
depends on a number of parameters: country; factors%E2%80%94july-2013
region, fuels used to produce electricity in the given
area (coal, nuclear, wind, etc...).

38 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

9. Inputs (scope 3) Modern technologies produce less GHG emissions

than older ones. Energy consumption is not
the same. It is therefore difficult to make solid
The GHG emissions arising from the production
estimations of GHG emissions only knowing
of the main vitivinicultural inputs are included in
the nature of the fertilizer. (Kongshaug, 1998)
the secondary boundaries of the calculation of
proposed a model of “building blocks”. This model
the Enterprise Protocol (EP) (scope 3), and shall be
links energy consumption and GHG emissions
included in the Product Protocol24.
to the “building block” constituting the final
It should be stressed out that emissions of N2O products. All kinds of fertilizers can be divided into
from soil due to the application of fertilisers are these building blocks, and consequently energy
accounted for under scope 1 (1.d). consumption and GHG emissions can easily be
estimated for them.
a. Inputs in viticulture
The main energy requirement for the production
of fertilizers is linked to the nitrogen component;
Trellis structures 92.5% for N, 3% for P2O5 and 4.5% for the K2O
Table 13 : Emission factors for trellis equipment component on a global basis. Production of the
(ADEME, 2014) most common phosphate fertilizers (DAP/MAP and
SSP/TSP) with modern technology releases excess
energy due to the huge surplus energy formation in
Elission factor modern sulphuric acid processes.
input Source
(kgCeq/t)
Table 9 (Kongshaug, 1998) presents estimates of
CO2 emission and energy consumtion for a number
New inox wire of fertilisers for three classes of technological
5250 ADEME (2014)
18/8 process: old, modern and average European
production facilities. The estimations are given for
production facilities in WESTERN EUROPE. For
New inox wire
4600 ADEME (2014)
example, the production of one ton of ammonium
18/9 nitrate (which contains 33.5% of N), causes
emissions of 1 to 2.5 tons of CO2 due to the energy
consumed during the manufacturing process,
Fertiliser production depending on the technology and methodology
Fertilizer production is highlighted in literature. used.
(Bosco et al., 2011) show that fertilizer and pesticide
production could constitute the most important Energy use and raw materials used can also
input to total GHG emissions during the viticultural influence the GHG footprint of fertilisers (Blonk
phase. et al., 2012)

It is not easy to give estimated CO2 emissions for Emissions of CO2 due to fertilisers’ production can
each fertilizer, so a number of parameters can be vary in different parts of the world. If (Kongshaug,
taken into account: 1998) deals with technological differences among
production plants in Western Europe, (Blonk et al.,
GHG emissions during the production of 2012) publishing estimated carbon footprint and
fertilizers depend on the technological process N2O emissions in six regions of the world:
used.

24
Resolution OIV-CST 431-2011

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 39
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

• West Europe Europe). If taken into account, on average, around

• East Europe (including Russia) the world, the CO2 emissions due to natural gas
• South America combustion for fertiliser production should be
• North America increased by 30%.
• Asia • Technological process used. Technology is not
the same all over the world. Some technologies
• Australia
cause more GHG emissions than others. One of
Two major parameters are taken into account in the major examples used is the emission of N2O
the estimations: country’ (or geographical zone’) (GHG with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of
energy mix and technological processes used. 298) during nitric acid production. The amount of
• Energy mix used in different parts of the world. N2O emitted depends on combustion conditions
Natural gas is the main source of energy for (pressure, temperature), catalyst composition,
ammonia production. Nevertheless, natural gas burner design and emission abatement
production and distribution causes losses. Big technologies. The quantity of N2O emitted can vary
differences are observed among countries in from 4.5 to 12.6 kg N20/tHNO3.
their gas production and distribution systems. (Blonk et al., 2012) summarise the results for
This means that emission factors of natural gas estimated carbon footprints for different types of
combustion (56.1 kg CO2 eq/GJ) should be corrected fertilisers and compare the numbers with those
accordingly. The corrections are considerable, found in other major publications on the subject:
and can reach up to 55% (for Russia and Central

Table 14 : Calculated carbon footprint (cradle to gate) for the most used N-fertilizers produced in
different global regions compared with figures from literature (Blonk et al., 2012)

Nitrogen Calcium
Anhydrous Ammonium Ammonium
Global region Urea solutions Ammonium
Ammonia Nitrate Sulphate
(liquid UAN) Nitrate

Calculated values (in kg CO2eq/per kg N)

7.27 (2.65 – 9.47 (6.60– 9.51 (6.65 –
World average 5.00 (4.41 - 5.63) 4.21 (3.27 – 5.29) 3.33 (0.94 – 6.23)
16.75) 14.14) 14.18)
Western 5.77 (2.11 – 7.99 (5.25 – 8.03 (5.29 –
3.49 (3.06 – 3.88) 2.85 (2.19 – 3.44) 2.14 (0.75 – 4.67)
Europe 10.38) 10.04) 10.08)
Russia + 7.08 (4.51 – 9.28 (7.94 – 9.33 (7.98 –
4.82 (4.41 - 5.36) 4.04 (3.44 – 4.98) 3.18 (1.37 – 5.84)
central Europe 14.11) 13.89) 13.93)
6.04 (2.74 – 8.27 (6.15 – 8.31 (6.18 –
North America 3.75 (3.29 – 4.17) 3.11 (2.40 – 3.75) 2.40 (0.75 – 4.67)
12.79) 12.76) 12.79)
9.65 (5.23 – 11.80 (10.18 – 11.86 (10.24–
5.20 (1.69 – 8.17)
China + India 7.41 (6.64 – 8.34) 17.12) 6.36 (5.16 – 7.98) 16.71) 16.77)

5.91 (3.49 – 8.14 (6.77 – 8.18 (6.80 –

2.99 (2.30 – 3.89) 2.28 (0.75 – 5.46)
Rest of world 3.63 (3.18 – 4.18) 13.62) 12.73) 12.76)

Between brackets are indicated minimum and maximum values

40 I OIV Collective Expertise
 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

ADEME (2014) publishes the following values for the production of fertilizers. These
data are given by the GES’TIM guidelines and are recognized by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Fishery in France.

Table 15 : Emission factors for main fertilisers’ production

Unit of Emission factor

Type of fertilizer nutritive (kgCO2eq/t of nutritive
element element)

Anhydrous ammonia 2980

Ammonium nitrate 33.5% 5860

Ton N
Urea 3700

Calcium ammonium nitrate 30% (CAN) - lime 30% (CAN) 6100

Trisuperphosphate (TSP) ton P2O5 581

Potassium chloride (KCl) ton K2O 451

ton N 5030

Fertiliser - ternary ton P2O5 940

ton K2O 510

ton P2O5 570

Fertiliser – binary PK
ton K2O 450

ton N 2970
Fertiliser – binary NK
ton K2O 450

Fertiliser – binary NP ton N 4310

Fertiliser average nitrogen ton N 5340

Fertiliser average phosporic ton P2O5 570

Fertiliser average potassic ton K2O 450

Manure Ton 3320

Compost Ton To be updated

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 41
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

More information on energy use and GHG the production of active elements of the product
emissions during fertiliser’ production and use can is considered. Commercial denominations of
be found in the following publications: phytosanitary products depend on the active
• A Review of Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for molecules presented and are not standardized
fertiliser production. This report was drafted for the between various commercializing companies.
International Energy Agency under the Bioenergy Data published by ADEME (2014) for average
Task 38:20 (Wood and Cowie, 2004) phytosanitary products are set out below and are
• “Carbon emission from farm operations” valid in Europe with an uncertainty factor of 30%.
(Lal, 2004) shows a synthesis of the available
information on energy use in farm operations, and Table 16 : Emission factors for phytosanitary
its conversion into carbon equivalent. The study products
is not limited to fertilizer production and use, but Emission factor
provides a synthesis of available data on GHG Phytosanitary product (kgCO2eq/ton of active
emissions from all farm operations. molecule)
Average phytosanitary product 920
Production of phytosanitary products
Average herbicide 915
It is extremely difficult to provide estimates Average fungicide 613
of emission factors for the production of
Average insecticide 25500
phytosanitary products but, in the calculations

b. Inputs in winemaking

The inputs that are listed in the OIV International Oenological Codex are included.
Some examples of values that can be found in major databases:

Table 17 Emission factors for oenological products

Emission factor
Oenological product Source
(kgCO2eq/t)
Citric acid, monohydrate 3300 ADEME (2014)
Tartric acid (D, L) 3300 ADEME (2014)
Sorbic acid 807 ADEME (2014)
Egg albumin, isinglass, gelatin, whey, potassium caseinate 1508 IFV (2011)
Other acids and salts of acids 3300 ADEME (2014)
Bentonite, kaolin 1100 ADEME (2014)
Potassium bisulfite 1470 ADEME (2014)
Calcium carbonate 75 ADEME (2014)
Chips (Wood) 10 IFV (2011)
Rectified ethanol of vitivinicultural origin 1830 ADEME (2014)
Arabic gum 400 UNGDA
Microoragnisms and extracts (bacteria, yeast, yeast cell) 2200 ADEME (2014)
Milk proteins, milk powder 5107 ADEME
Brine (sodium chloride) 169 ADEME (2014)
Liquid SO2 440 ADEME (2014)
Sugar (sucrose) 200 IFV (2011)
Tannins 2200 ADEME (2014)
Diatomaceous earth, diatomite, perlite 1010 ADEME (2014)
Ammonium sulphate 733 ADEME (2014)
ADEME: French Agency for Environment and Energy Management

42 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

c. Inputs for cleaning the winery

The following emission factors for cleaning products are published by ADEME (2014):

Table 18 Emission factors for winery cleaning inputs

Emission factor (kg.

Inputs for cleaning the winery eq.CO2/t) Source

Nitric acid (50%) 3180 ADEME (2014)

Phosphoric acid 1420 ADEME (2014)

Soda liquid (50%) 587 ADEME (2014)

Solid sodium hydroxide 458 ADEME (2014)

15% sodium hypochlorite 920 ADEME (2014)

Sodium sulfate 473 ADEME (2014)

Antifoam products 1830 ADEME (2014)

d. Inputs for bottling/packaging

The following emission factors can be found in major databases:

Table 19 : Emission factors for bottling items

Emission factor
Inputs for bottling (kg.eq.CO2/t) Source

PET bottle 3400 ADEME (2014)

PET 3224 WFA GHG calculator

Bag-in Box (3L,5L,10L) 725 AVENTERRE/IFV

Glass (from recyclate 70%) 810 ADEME (2014)

Glass (from recycled 54%, reuse rate 7% 791 ECLD (2014)

- average EU, Turkey, Switzerland)

Antifoam products 1830 ADEME (2014)

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 43
Chapter 2 I Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category

e. Inputs for wine closures

Some examples of values that can be found for wine closures in various databases:

Table 20 Emission factors for wine closures

kgCO2eq/ t
Closure source
closure

Additional composite cap (aluminium 35% recycled / LDPE)

7700 ADEME (2014)
effervescent vine - 1 g

Additional composite cap (aluminium 35% recycled) effervescent

5680 ADEME (2014)
vine - 3.2 g

Additional composite cap (aluminium 70% recycled / LDPE)

4030 ADEME (2014)
effervescent vine - 1 g

Additional composite cap (aluminium 70% recycled) effervescent

3300 ADEME (2014)
vine - 3.2 g

Additional tin cap 17100 ADEME (2014)

10600 ADEME (2014)

Screw cap (aluminium 35% recycled + PE seal / tin) - 4.8g
10633 WFA calculator

screw cap (aluminium75% recycled + PE seal / tin) - 4.8g 7300 ADEME (2014)

Agglomerate quiet wine cork - 5.5g 2200 ADEME (2014)

Effervescent wine cork LA2R - 9.5g 4770 ADEME (2014)

2310 ADEME (2014)

Natural still wine cork - 3.5g
438 AMORIM25

Muselet - 5.6 g 3850 ADEME (2014)

Natural Cork & PVC Capsule 2490 WFA calculator

Agglomerate Cork & PVC Capsule 4253 WFA calculator

Agglomerate Cork & Aluminium Capsule 4863 WFA calculator

The differences among published data can be explained by the differences in the
methodology used, but also by the product chosen (country of production, transport
conditions, recycled material used, recycling phase, etc…).

25
(CORTICEIRA AMORIM, 2008)

44 I OIV Collective Expertise

 Calculation of GHG emissions/storage by inventory category I Chapter 2

f. Inputs for outer or transport packaging

Several values are given below :

Table 21 Emission factors for outer and transport packaging

Input Emission factor Source

(kg.eq.CO /t)

Paper labels (printed) 2930 ADEME (2014)

Glue (starch) 550 ADEME (2014)

Plastic film PET (non recyclable) 5500 ADEME (2014)

1060 ADEME (2014)

Cardboard
1792 WFA GHG calculator

g. Emission during vineyard development phase (first 3 years)

These emissions should be accounted for in the product protocol.

They include emissions arising from agronomical operation during non-productive

period of the vineyard, including emissions of nursery production chain, divided by 30
years of “standard” vineyard duration.

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 45
 What phase of production makes the most important contribution to GHG emissions? I Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3 WHAT PHASE OF PRODUCTION MAKES THE MOST

IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO GHG EMISSIONS
This section includes some studies that have medium-size wineries in Italy, Spain, France,
analysed and quantified the GHGs emitted during Austria, Germany, Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal and
two wine production phases. Switzerland. The majority of pilot wineries were
small family owned producers (< 20 ha of vineyard
(Bosco et al., 2011) studied the GHG emissions and < 100.000 bottles/year), but larger firms and
occurring during agricultural and winemaking/ cooperative wineries were also represented.
processing phases. The results show that the
agricultural phase plays an important role, with The results show that even taking into account
a considerable value of total global warming the variability in size among wineries, glass, fuel,
potential, compared with the wine processing electricity and cardboard are by far the major
phase. contributors to GHG emission in a winery.

Viticultural (Agricultural) phase Nevertheless, this evaluation did not include

plantings, building, equipment, internal
Within the agricultural phase the main processes transportation, and marketing activities, and other
generating GHG emissions were fertilizer and production factors that can have a significant
pesticide production. impact on the carbon footprint of a finished
product.
The pre-production phase (tillage, fertilization,
weed and pest, management, vineyard binding, Figure 6 : Input CO2 emission contribution
material transport) were not significant in the (Zambrana et al., 2014)
context of the whole phase of production.

In the vineyard-planting phase, diesel consumption

for the deep tillage operation done before planting
was considerable.

Vinicultural (Wine processing) phase

Some studies ((Aranda et al., 2005); (Pattara et

al., 2012) ; (Benedetto, 2013)) are formal life cycle
analyses and their calculation include energy use
and GHG emissions associated with the production
and transport of inputs such as fertilisers and
pesticides.

Within the wine processing, the production of glass

bottles covers a great part of carbon footprint, over
the total global warming potential. The weight of
glass bottle should be considered with care

Finally, the GHG emission ranges for the vitcultural

(grape growing) stage could be found in some
Source: (http://www.ecoprowine.eu/results/2014/oct/12/d14-
relevant reviews (Garnett, 2007). evaluation-assessment/)

The ECOPROWINE project (ECO/11/304386)

conducted GHG emissions analysis in 84 pilot

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADEME (2014). Carbone organique des sols : l’énergie de l’agro-écologie, une solution pour le climat
(ADEME).
Aranda, A., Zabalza, I., and Scarpellini, S. (2005). Economic and environmental analysis of the wine bottle
production in Spain by means of life cycle assessment. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 4, 178–191.
Arrouays, D., Balesdent, J., Germon, J.-C., Payet, P.-A., Soussana, J.-F., and Stengel, P. (2002). Stocker du
Carbone dans les sols agricoles en France (INRA).
Benedetto, G. (2013). The environmental impact of a Sardinian wine by partial Life Cycle Assessment.
Wine Econ. Policy 2, 33–41.
Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., and Kool, A. (2012). LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse
gas emissions of feed production and utilization; GHG Emissions of N, P and K fertilizer production.
Bosco, S., Di Bene, C., Galli, M., Remorini, D., Massai, R., and Bonari, E. (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions
in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma rural district in Tuscany, Italy. Ital. J. Agron.
6.
Bouwman, A.F. (1996). Direct emission of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems
46, 53–70.
CLECAT (2012). Calculating GHG emissions for freight forwarding and logistics services in accordance with
EN 16258: terms, methods, examples (CLECAT; DSLV).
Clingeleffer, P.R., and Krake, L.R. (1992). Responses of Cabernet franc Grapevines to Minimal Pruning and
Virus Infection. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 43, 31–37.
CORTICEIRA AMORIM (2008). Evaluation of the environmental impacts of Cork Stoppers versus Aluminium
and Plastic Closures. In Analysis of the Life Cycle of Cork, Aluminum and Plastic Wine Closures Prepared
By Price Water House Coopers Ecobilan Conference, pp. 560–561.
FNADE, and Bio Intelligence Service pour la FNADE (2008). LE SECTEUR DES DECHETS ET SON RÔLE DANS
LA LUTTE CONTRE LE CHANGEMENT CLIMATIQUE ET SONROLE DANS LA LUTTE CONTRE LE CHANGEMENT
CLIMATIQUE.
Garnett, T. (2007). The alcohol we drink and its contribution to the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions: a
discussion paper.
Hondo, H. (2005). Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case. Energy
30, 2042–2056.
IEA (2015). Railway handbook 2015: energy consumption and CO2 emissions (International Energy
Agency; International Union of Railways).
IPCC (2006a). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Volume 4: agriculture,
forestry and other land use; chapter 4: forest land (IPCC).

48 I OIV Collective Expertise

IPCC (2006b). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Volume 4: Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use; N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS, AND CO2 EMISSIONS FROM LIME
AND UREA APPLICATION (IPCC).
IPCC (2006c). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Volume 2 Energy (IPCC).
Keightley, K.E. (2011). Applying New Methods for Estimating in Vivo Vineyard Carbon Storage. Am. J. Enol.
Vitic. 62, 214–218.
Kongshaug, G. (1998). ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN FERTILIZER
PRODUCTION. (Marrakech, Morocco: International Fertilizer Industry Association)
Lal, R. (2004). Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ. Int. 30, 981–990.
Lesschen, J.P., Velthof, G.L., de Vries, W., and Kros, J. (2011). Differentiation of nitrous oxide emission
factors for agricultural soils. Environ. Pollut. 159, 3215–3222.
Mullins, M.G., Bouquet, A., and Williams, L.E. (1992). Biology of the Grapevine (Cambridge University
Press).
Pattara, C., Cichelli, A., Civitarese, C., and Di Martino, M. (2012). A Comparison of Carbon Footprints in
Wine Production: The Case of Two Cooperatives Wineries in Central Italy. Bull. OIV 85, 307–316.
Roger, P., and Le Mer, J. (2003). Les sols : sources et puits de méthane. Étude Gest. Sols 10, 331–345.
Schlesinger, W.H. (1997). Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change (Academic Press).
Stehfest, E., and Bouwman, L. (2006). N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under
natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modeling of global annual emissions.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 74, 207–228.
de Wild-Scholten, M., Cassagne, V., and Huld, T. (2014). SOLAR RESOURCES AND CARBON FOOTPRINT
OF PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER IN DIFFERENT REGIONS IN EUROPE. In Proceedings of the 29th EUPVSEC,
(Amsterdam, The Netherlands), pp. 3421–3430.
Williams, L.E., and Biscay, P.J. (1991). Partitioning of Dry Weight, Nitrogen, and Potassium in Cabernet
Sauvignon Grapevines From Anthesis Until Harvest. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 42, 113–117.
Williams, J.N., Hollander, A.D., O’Geen, A.T., Thrupp, L.A., Hanifin, R., Steenwerth, K., McGourty, G.,
and Jackson, L.E. (2011). Assessment of carbon in woody plants and soil across a vineyard-woodland
landscape. Carbon Balance Manag. 6, 1–14.
Wood, S., and Cowie, A. (2004). A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser production. In
IEA Bioenergy Task, pp. 1–20.
Zambrana, D., Mainar, L., Ferreira, G., and Trioli, G. (2014). ECO-PROWINE - Life Cycle perspective for Low
Impact Winemaking and Application in EU of Eco-innovative Technologies.

Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector I 49