DOCSLIB.ORG

Transaction Costs of Forest Carbon Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transaction Costs of Forest Carbon Projects Transaction costs of forest carbon projects By Mary Milne Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Bogor, INDONESIA Report submitted to the University of New England, as part of the ACIAR Project ASEM/1999/093, The role of carbon sequestration credits in influencing the economic performance of farm forestry systems. Working Paper CC05. ACIAR project ASEM 1999/093, http://www.une.edu.au/febl/Econ/carbon/ 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction _____________________________________________________6 2 Methodology_____________________________________________________6 3 Review of transaction costs of setting up carbon-sequestration projects______7 3.1 Definition and types of transaction costs_________________________________ 7 3.2 Identification of transaction costs in the project cycle______________________ 8 3.3 Review of studies on the size of transaction costs_________________________ 10 3.4 Energy projects ____________________________________________________ 10 3.5 Forest projects _____________________________________________________ 13 4 Case studies of AIJ forest carbon projects ____________________________14 4.1 Selection of case studies _____________________________________________ 15 4.2 Quantification of project transaction costs ______________________________ 16 4.3 Project goals and partners ___________________________________________ 18 4.4 FACE-PROFAFOR_________________________________________________ 20 4.4.1 Design ______________________________________________________________23 4.4.2 Approval ____________________________________________________________23 4.4.3 Information and search (local participants) __________________________________23 4.4.4 Pre-validation_________________________________________________________23 4.4.5 Contract negotiation and approval_________________________________________24 4.4.6 Contract implementation ________________________________________________24 4.4.7 Monitoring___________________________________________________________25 4.4.8 Enforcement__________________________________________________________25 4.4.9 Insurance ____________________________________________________________26 4.4.10 Internal verification ____________________________________________________26 4.4.11 Certification and sale of credits ___________________________________________26 4.4.12 Estimation of project transaction costs _____________________________________27 4.4.13 Factors influencing the size of transaction costs ______________________________27 4.5 Scolel Té carbon sequestration project _________________________________ 28 4.5.2 Design ______________________________________________________________30 4.5.3 Search ______________________________________________________________30 4.5.4 Negotiation __________________________________________________________31 4.5.5 Validation ___________________________________________________________31 4.5.6 Project implementation _________________________________________________31 4.5.7 Monitoring___________________________________________________________32 4.5.8 Enforcement of contracts________________________________________________32 4.5.9 Insurance ____________________________________________________________32 4.5.10 Verification __________________________________________________________33 4.5.11 Registration and administration of carbon credit sales _________________________33 4.5.12 Estimation of project transaction costs _____________________________________34 4.5.13 Reduction of transaction costs ____________________________________________34 4.6 Klinki Forestry Program ____________________________________________ 35 4.6.2 Design of the Program__________________________________________________35 4.6.3 Search costs for Program partners _________________________________________36 4.6.4 Negotiation __________________________________________________________36 4.6.5 Approval ____________________________________________________________37 4.6.6 Information and search costs for donors ____________________________________37 4.6.7 Search (program to farmer) ______________________________________________37 4.6.8 Negotiations of projects_________________________________________________38 2 4.6.9 Project administration __________________________________________________39 4.6.10 Establishment of projects________________________________________________39 4.6.11 Technical assistance____________________________________________________40 4.6.12 Monitoring___________________________________________________________40 4.6.13 Enforcement__________________________________________________________41 4.6.14 Insurance ____________________________________________________________41 4.6.15 Reporting to donors ____________________________________________________41 4.6.16 Verification and certification_____________________________________________41 4.6.17 Estimates of transaction costs ____________________________________________42 4.7 Costa Rica/Norway Reforestation and Forest Conservation Project _________ 44 4.7.1 Pre-implementation transaction costs ______________________________________45 4.7.2 Design ______________________________________________________________45 4.7.3 Implementation of contracts _____________________________________________45 4.7.4 Monitoring and verification______________________________________________46 4.7.5 Enforcement__________________________________________________________46 4.7.6 Verification of emission reductions________________________________________46 4.7.7 Certification of CERS and of sale of credits _________________________________46 4.7.8 Estimates of transaction costs ____________________________________________47 4.8 SIF Carbon Sequestration Project_____________________________________ 48 4.8.1 Search for funding _____________________________________________________48 4.8.2 Design ______________________________________________________________49 4.8.3 Negotiation with project partners _________________________________________49 4.8.4 Validation and approval_________________________________________________49 4.8.5 Contracting __________________________________________________________49 4.8.6 Monitoring___________________________________________________________50 4.8.7 Enforcement__________________________________________________________50 4.8.8 Insurance ____________________________________________________________51 4.8.9 External verification ___________________________________________________51 4.8.10 Certification of CERS and of sale of credits _________________________________51 4.8.11 Estimates of transaction costs ____________________________________________51 4.9 RUSAFOR: Saratov Afforestation Project ______________________________ 53 4.9.1 Information and search _________________________________________________53 4.9.2 Design ______________________________________________________________53 4.9.3 Negotiation __________________________________________________________54 4.9.4 Monitoring___________________________________________________________54 4.9.5 Enforcement__________________________________________________________54 4.9.6 Verification and certification_____________________________________________54 4.9.7 Estimation of transaction costs ___________________________________________54 4.10 Summary _______________________________________________________ 55 5 Institutional arrangements________________________________________57 5.1 Institutional capacity and policy environment ___________________________ 57 5.2 Minimising transaction costs _________________________________________ 58 5.2.2 Search and information costs_____________________________________________60 5.2.3 Design ______________________________________________________________61 5.2.4 Negotiation __________________________________________________________63 5.2.5 Validation ___________________________________________________________63 5.2.6 Implementation of contracts _____________________________________________63 5.2.7 Monitoring___________________________________________________________64 5.2.8 Enforcement__________________________________________________________64 5.2.9 Insurance ____________________________________________________________65 5.2.10 Verification and certification_____________________________________________66 5.2.11 Sales of carbon credits__________________________________________________66 6 Summary_______________________________________________________68 7 References _____________________________________________________69 3 8 Appendix 1: Studies on the estimation of project transaction costs_________74 9 Appendix 2: Pre-implementation steps for PCF projects_________________75 4 Acknowledgements I would like to thank project managers Luis Fernando Jara, Herster Barres, and Gus Hellier who kindly agreed to participate in a phone survey on the transaction costs of their respective projects. Thanks also must go to Susan Subak and Michelle Golodetz who both reviewed project case studies and to Oscar Cacho who reviewed the entire document and provided invaluable comments throughout the duration of the study. 5 1 Introduction To date, research on transaction costs of carbon markets has focused on energy projects and international emissions trading (IET). Limited analysis has been performed on the transaction costs of forest carbon projects, especially regarding the viability of small-scale ventures. Most studies suggest that transaction costs for carbon projects, especially small scale, have been significantly high. Research is therefore needed to determine: (i) the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 the Background for Carbon Finance and Carbon Credits
    CHAPTER 1 THE BACKGROUND FOR CARBON FINANCE AND CARBON CREDITS THE LINK BETWEEN CLIMATE CHANGE, GHG EMISSIONS, AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Climate change is one of the biggest threats we face. Everyday activities like driving a car or a motorbike, using air conditioning and/or heating and lighting houses consume energy and produce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), which contribute to climate change. When the emissions of GHGs are rising, the Earth’s climate is affected, the average weather changes and average temperatures increase. FIGURE 1 Sources of agricultural GHGs in megatons (Mt) CO2-eq 2128 1792 672 616 369 158 410 CO2 CO2 CH 413 CH4+ N2O 4 CO2 + N2O Irrigation N02 Farm Rice machinery Biomass production CH4 N0 +CH burning 2 4 Fertiliser production Nitrous oxide from fertilised soils + land conversion Manure to agriculture 5900 Mt CO2-eq Methane from cattle enteric fermentation Source: Greenpeace International, 2008. In agriculture and forestry different sources and sinks release, take up and store three types of GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Many agricultural and forestry practices emit GHGs to the atmosphere. Figure 1 shows the main sources of agricultural GHGs: for example, by using fertilizers N2O is released from the soil and by burning agricultural residues CO2 levels rise. CH4 is set free in the digestion 1 ] process of livestock, as well as if rice is grown under flooded conditions. When land is converted to cropland and trees are felled, a source of CO2 emissions is created. Agriculture is an important contributor to climate change, but it also provides a sink and has the potential to lessen climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Restoration for Protected Areas Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices
    Ecological Restoration for Protected Areas Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices Prepared by the IUCN WCPA Ecological Restoration Taskforce Karen Keenleyside, Nigel Dudley, Stephanie Cairns, Carol Hall and Sue Stolton, Editors Peter Valentine, Series Editor Developing capacity for a protected planet Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No.18 IUCN WCPA’s BEST PRACTICE PROTECTED AREA GUIDELINES SERIES IUCN-WCPA’s Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines are the world’s authoritative resource for protected area managers. Involving collaboration among specialist practitioners dedicated to supporting better implementation in the field, they distil learning and advice drawn from across IUCN. Applied in the field, they are building institutional and individual capacity to manage protected area systems effectively, equitably and sustainably, and to cope with the myriad of challenges faced in practice. They also assist national governments, protected area agencies, non- governmental organisations, communities and private sector partners to meet their commitments and goals, and especially the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas. A full set of guidelines is available at: www.iucn.org/pa_guidelines Complementary resources are available at: www.cbd.int/protected/tools/ Contribute to developing capacity for a Protected Planet at: www.protectedplanet.net/ IUCN PROTECTED AREA DEFINITION, MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES AND GOVERNANCE TYPES IUCN defines a protected area as: A clearly defined geographical space,
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits: Making Sense of Protocols for Carbon Sequestration and Net Greenhouse Gas Removals
    Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits: Making sense of protocols for carbon sequestration and net greenhouse gas removals NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS About this report This synthesis is for federal and state We contacted each carbon registry and policymakers looking to shape public marketplace to ensure that details investments in climate mitigation presented in this report and through agricultural soil carbon credits, accompanying appendix are accurate. protocol developers, project developers This report does not address carbon and aggregators, buyers of credits and accounting outside of published others interested in learning about the protocols meant to generate verified landscape of soil carbon and net carbon credits. greenhouse gas measurement, reporting While not a focus of the report, we and verification protocols. We use the remain concerned that any end-use of term MRV broadly to encompass the carbon credits as an offset, without range of quantification activities, robust local pollution regulations, will structural considerations and perpetuate the historic and ongoing requirements intended to ensure the negative impacts of carbon trading on integrity of quantified credits. disadvantaged communities and Black, This report is based on careful review Indigenous and other communities of and synthesis of publicly available soil color. Carbon markets have enormous organic carbon MRV protocols published potential to incentivize and reward by nonprofit carbon registries and by climate progress, but markets must be private carbon crediting marketplaces. paired with a strong regulatory backing. Acknowledgements This report was supported through a gift Conservation Cropping Protocol; Miguel to Environmental Defense Fund from the Taboada who provided feedback on the High Meadows Foundation for post- FAO GSOC protocol; Radhika Moolgavkar doctoral fellowships and through the at Nori; Robin Rather, Jim Blackburn, Bezos Earth Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Carbon to Offset Emissions from the EU Refining And/Or Road Transport Sector
    Forest carbon to offset emissions from the EU refining and/or road transport sector Presentation for the 12th Concawe Symposium, March 2017 Prof. Dr Lars Hein Contents of the presentation .Rationale .Forest carbon and the carbon market .Recent developments .Criteria for purchasing offsets .Options to test offsetting in the refining and road transport sector Rationale . Changing regulatory and market environments provide a strong incentive to better understand options to reduce the sector’s CO2 footprint. Carbon credits including from forest carbon may be used to offset emissions from the EU refining and road transport sector. Carbon offsets may provide an option to cost-effectively enhance the environmental performance of road fuels. However understanding the technical, economic and policy environment is essential. The global carbon balance . Land based (LULUCF) emissions contribute around 1 + 0.5 Gton C/year to global CO2 emissions (period 2006- 2015) Forest carbon . Temperate and boreal zones: increases in carbon stocks over time due to expansion of the forest cover . Tropical zones: net emissions highest in the tropics, from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) . Emissions from peat lands (marshes): ● Peat oxidation leads to an emission of around 0.3- 0.6 Gton C world-wide, most of this in the tropics. ● Peat fires add another 0.1 - 0.5 Gton C (El Niño effect). Peat lands in the Netherlands and Indonesia Forest carbon credit projects . Three types of forest carbon projects: ● Reforestation and afforestation (tree planting) ● Enhanced forest management (plus agroforestry) ● REDD : Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) (/REDD+) . REDD projects claim carbon credits from avoided deforestation (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecocide: the Missing Crime Against Peace'
    35 690 Initiative paper from Representative Van Raan: 'Ecocide: The missing crime against peace' No. 2 INITIATIVE PAPER 'The rules of our world are laws, and they can be changed. Laws can restrict, or they can enable. What matters is what they serve. Many of the laws in our world serve property - they are based on ownership. But imagine a law that has a higher moral authority… a law that puts people and planet first. Imagine a law that starts from first do no harm, that stops this dangerous game and takes us to a place of safety….' Polly Higgins, 2015 'We need to change the rules.' Greta Thunberg, 2019 Table of contents Summary 1 1. Introduction 3 2. The ineffectiveness of current legislation 7 3. The legal framework for ecocide law 14 4. Case study: West Papua 20 5. Conclusion 25 6. Financial section 26 7. Decision points 26 Appendix: The institutional history of ecocide 29 Summary Despite all our efforts, the future of our natural environments, habitats, and ecosystems does not look promising. Human activity has ensured that climate change continues to persist. Legal instruments are available to combat this unprecedented damage to the natural living environment, but these instruments have proven inadequate. With this paper, the initiator intends to set forth an innovative new legal concept. This paper is a study into the possibilities of turning this unprecedented destruction of our natural environment into a criminal offence. In this regard, we will use the term ecocide, defined as the extensive damage to or destruction of ecosystems through human activity.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Carbon Markets
    AN INTRODUCTION TO CARBON MARKETS IATA & IETA WORKSHOP, NAIROBI 14-15 FEBRUARY 2017 WWW.CLIMATECARE.ORG CLIMATECARE • Based in Nairobi, UK and India • Works with corporate and government partners to develop and implement their carbon management strategies • Develops carbon reduction projects, specialising in community energy access programmes that deliver sustainable development alongside emission reductions • IATA’s carbon offset partner for the IATA Voluntary Offset Program • Current Co-Chair of ICROA – the international voluntary carbon market industry alliance promoting best practices • Strategic Partners of Gold Standard for Global Goals WHAT IS A CARBON CREDIT? A carbon credit is a tradeable instrument which represents either: • A permit which gives the holder the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide or equivalent greenhouse gas (tCO2e) into the atmosphere or • A certificate from a project that represents the removal or avoidance of one 1 tCO2e from the atmosphere THE CARBON MARKETS As well as 2 distinct carbon credit types (Permits and Project-based credits), there are 2 distinct types of carbon market. Compliance Markets for carbon credits created by the need to comply with a regulatory act. In a Cap-and-Trade emissions reductions market, actors buy and sell carbon credits to comply with the cap or limit imposed on their emissions. Voluntary Carbon market that functions outside of compliance markets. Enabling businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to voluntarily offset their emissions by purchasing carbon credits. THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CARBON CREDITS Market Compliance Voluntary Credit Type Permits to Pollute Project- Based Emission Project-Based Reduction Credits Emission Reduction Credits Description A ‘certificate to pollute’ one A carbon credit of 1 tonne A carbon credit of 1 tonne of CO2e.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Note March 2021 Opportunities at the Intersection of Carbon Markets and Agriculture
    Research Note March 2021 Opportunities at the Intersection of Carbon Markets and Agriculture Increasing numbers of corporations and other organizations are making firm commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to help mitigate the pace of future climate change, some specifically targeting net-zero emissions over the next ten to twenty years. Reaching these targets will require reductions in both direct and indirect output of greenhouse gases related to their own operations as well as funding activities that will either reduce greenhouse emissions or directly capture and store carbon from the atmosphere through the purchase of carbon-credits or carbon-insets activities. The Science Based Targets initiative outlines the needed actions as primarily abatement (eliminating emissions in companies’ value chains), followed by neutralization (carbon removals within companies’ supply chains, referred to as carbon insets) and compensation (purchasing carbon offsets).1 The agricultural sector has significant potential to contribute to these neutralization and compensation climate- change mitigation efforts through operational practices that reduce the level of greenhouse gases per unit of production and/or boost the amount of carbon stored in farmland soils. Currently, market structures are quickly evolving to allow the creation, accounting, verification, marketing, sale, and transfer of Soils contain about 75% of the agricultural carbon credits. The development carbon stored on land, more of robust markets for farmland-based carbon than three times the amount credits will directly connect organizations contained in plants and animals. seeking natural climate solutions with climate change mitigating opportunities inherent in farming. Opening this new tier of climate-solution capital for farmland could help incentivize farmers to accelerate the shift to climate-positive operations and regenerative agricultural practices, and potentially create new revenue streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Carbon Credits a Guidebook to Selling Your Credits on the Carbon Market
    Forest Carbon Credits A Guidebook To Selling Your Credits On The Carbon Market Students of Research for Environmental Agencies and Organizations, Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Robert O’Connor, Director, Division of Conservation Services Kurt Gaertner, Land Policy and Planning Director 1 March 2018 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 A Comparison of Voluntary and Mandatory Systems …................................................................. 4 Developing Your Project ………............................................................................................................... 5 Choosing An Offset Project Type .......................................................................................... 5 Registering Your Carbon Credits ........................................................................................... 6 Verified Carbon Standard ………................................................................................. 7 American Carbon Registry …..................................................................................... 9 Climate Action Reserve .............................................................................................. 11 Clean Development Mechanism ............................................................................. 13 Gold Standard
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Credits Improving the Sustainability of International Shipping How Does the Process Work?
    Carbon Credits Improving the sustainability of international shipping How does the Process work? Ship converts to Intersleek® technology Ship owner/operator provides data for whole docking cycle prior to, and after the application of Intersleek® Data analysed and a claim submitted to The Gold Standard Foundation Validation Independent auditor and Gold Standard validates the claim submission Project registration. Guarantee that credits will be issued for vessels Ship owner/operator provides up-to-date information after application of Intersleek® New data is analysed to calculate the exact carbon credit claim Independent auditor verifies the exact amount of carbon credits to be issued Verification Gold Standard carries out an issuance review Carbon credits issued What are carbon credits? Carbon credits are financial instruments of measurement where one credit represents one tonne of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) equivalent either removed or prevented from entering the atmosphere. They were created to promote the use of carbon-reducing technologies through the generation of revenue by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon credits in the marine industry Qualifying for carbon credits AkzoNobel’s Marine Coatings business has worked To qualify, a vessel needs to be converted from a with The Gold Standard Foundation to create the traditional biocide-containing antifouling to Intersleek® first approved carbon credit methodology in the during routine drydocking. Many vessels already marine industry. The methodology is unique in that converted to Intersleek® already qualify. it is the only approved carbon credit generating methodology for moving articles (i.e. ships) which are not geographically bound (all other projects have What is the value of carbon credits? strict territorial boundaries).
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Results Memorandum Final.Pdf
    To: Denise Wilson, Director, Environmental Review Program – Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) From: Barr Engineering Co. Project Team Subject: Public Engagement Survey Results Date: May 3, 2021 Page: 1 Technical Memorandum To: Denise Wilson, Director, Environmental Review Program – Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) From: Barr Engineering Co. Project Team Subject: Public Engagement Survey Results Date: May 3, 2021 Project: Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee (ERIS) Engagement (Project) 1.0 Introduction As directed by EQB’s 2020-2021 Workplan, and in response to Executive Order 19-37 on climate change, ERIS (a subcommittee of the Environmental Quality Board [EQB]) convened an Interagency Environmental Review Climate Technical Team to advise them on changes to the State Environmental Review Program requirements. Accordingly, the Environmental Review Climate Technical Team developed the DRAFT Recommendations: Integrating Climate Information into MEPA Program Requirements, dated December 2020, (DRAFT Recommendations). The DRAFT Recommendations specified an engagement framework to solicit input from various stakeholders, including the public. EQB contracted with Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) to assist with implementing the engagement process. The engagement consisted of: • Public comment period • Listening sessions • Public survey • Interviews This memorandum summarizes the feedback received through the public survey. A total of 496 survey responses were submitted. Section 2.0 of this memorandum describes the method used to create the survey and targeted outreach. Section 3.0 of this memorandum provides summaries of responses received to each question. 2.0 Survey Implementation Process and Targeted Engagement Barr used the SurveyMonkey platform for conducting the public engagement survey regarding the DRAFT recommendations. Barr and EQB’s technical team collaborated to develop the questions provided in the survey.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiesel Carbon Intensity
    Briefing Biodiesel carbon intensity, sustainability and effects on vehicles and emissions Authors: Francisco Posada, Chris Malins, Anil Baral Date: January 2012 Keywords: biodiesel, Jatropha, emissions, ILUC Summary This paper summarizes direct and indirect emission and sustainability impacts of biodiesel and assesses the effect of biodiesel blends from the most common feedstocks on compression ignition engine emissions and performance. Key takeaways include: • Existing biodiesel production pathways are unlikely to deliver significant net climate benefits due to indirect emissions. • Models of production have been proposed (e.g ‘Responsible Cultivation Areas’) to avoid indirect emissions from biodiesel production. Jatropha curcuas L. (Jatropha) production carefully planned on land without existing provisioning services could offer meaningful carbon benefits. • Without safeguards, driving biodiesel demand is likely to negatively affect food security and land rights. • Biodiesel expansion is likely to have negative impacts on biodiversity and the local environment, as is expected from any expansion of industrial agriculture. • For both social and environmental risks, there are models of production that would avoid or minimise negative impacts – in particular smallholder focused production models implementing sustainability schemes such as the ‘Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels’. • Biodiesel will have both positive and negative air quality impacts, depending on the pollutant. Biodiesel reduces emissions of HC, CO and PM. The impact on NOx
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Engineering the Carbon Supply Chain with Blockchain Technology
    WHITE PAPER RE-ENGINEERING THE CARBON SUPPLY CHAIN WITH BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY Abstract The effect of greenhouse gas emissions across the globe is forcing countries as well as companies to redesign their manufacturing processes and reduce their carbon footprint. However, despite international agreements, there is a lack of global and standardized system to measure carbon emissions and track where it is generated across the supply chain. Without such a system, sustainable strategies will have only a limited impact. This paper explains how blockchain technology can be used to measure carbon, calculate carbon credit, standardize emissions, and ensure fair carbon credit pricing through an integrated and standardized platform. It also discusses the current challenges in the carbon supply chain and how blockchain can address these. Introduction Across the globe, citizens are becoming across the globe which is similar to any are several companies/authorities such as increasingly aware of and concerned financial transaction. This carbon trade CarbonNeutral®, Bonsucro, carboNZero, about the impact of human activities on allows parties that emit higher amounts of Climate Registered, EarthCheck, etc., the environment. Recently, there have carbon than permissible limits to purchase that inform customers about the carbon been numerous initiatives that encourage or exchange credits from parties that have footprint of various products4. companies as well as countries to reduce lowered their carbon emissions than the Fuelled by the need to spread awareness of the emission of carbon and greenhouse permissible limits, thereby balancing out eco-friendly practices, many manufacturers gases across the entire supply chain. the amount of greenhouse gases emitted and retailers are taking active steps to One such key initiative accepted by 197 into the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]