As part of ASR Group, we are committed to reducing carbon emissions from our own operations and our supply chain. We are committed to a science-based approach in our work towards this goal, and in the spirit of this commitment we are pleased to share the results of an independent, third-party study of the carbon footprint of our mill, Belize Sugar Industries Limited (BSI) in Northern Belize and the Fairtrade certified smallholder cane farmers who supply it. The study was funded by Fairtrade International and conducted by an independent consultancy, Soil & More Impacts.
The purpose of the study was to establish a baseline from which we can identify opportunities to reduce carbon emissions. Juan Pablo Solis, Senior Advisor Climate and Environment at Fairtrade International who instigated the study, said, "Carbon footprint studies in sugarcane help to identify areas of improvement and make trading sugar more climate friendly. They also demonstrate the positive environmental performance of Fairtrade producers.”
According to the study, the carbon footprint of raw cane sugar produced by BSI was determined to be 0.474 kg CO2e per kg raw sugar. The study is available in full here: https://bit.ly/3MHZrJu
The footprint was calculated by assessing the smallholder cane farmers’ land management practices, such as the use of fertiliser and pesticides, crop residue management and the transport of sugarcane to the mill, as well as data on energy and material consumption attributable to processing sugarcane at the mill. In addition, emissions from land-use change were included using remote sensing land use change data. The carbon footprint of raw cane sugar excluding emissions associated with land-use change was determined to be 0.220 kg CO2e per kg raw sugar.
The study identified that the largest contributor to emissions was land-use change to arable lands (53% based on remote sensing data model; 0.254 kg CO2e per kg raw sugar). While land management and mechanical contributors on the farm accounted for 39% of the figure (0.183 kg CO2e per kg raw sugar).
The carbon footprint of raw cane sugar is favourably impacted by existing operational practices which are already carbon positive, as confirmed in the study:
BSI uses biomass from sugarcane as fuel to power its mill; this means that the emissions occurring within the milling boundary contribute only 8% of the total footprint with consideration of land use change and without allowances for green energy production.
BSI provides 15% of the electricity needs of Belize. If this export of green energy and the resultant renewable energy credit were to be included in the calculation, the mill would be viewed as being a net-negative contributor to climate change.
Additionally, since every megawatt hour sold offsets a petroleum-based electrical demand purchased from the Mexico grid, potential offsets could be argued to mitigate most of the farming activities as well. These numbers, though reported, are not currently claimed by the mill or its suppliers to ensure accuracy and avoid the risk of double counting climate change mitigations.
ASR Group recently reaffirmed its vision to be the most sustainable sugar company in the world, with additional commitments to reduce carbon emissions from our own operations and wider supply chain.
The ASR Group Climate Action Roadmap (link), illustrates how we will achieve three ambitious commitments:
reduce CO2 in scope 1&2 by 50% by 2030;
be carbon neutral (in scope 1&2) by 2040;
be net zero (including scope 3) by 2050 or before.
As we strive towards our net zero goals, we will:
continue to invest in improving the performance of the mill to address the factors highlighted as the most profound contributors to our climate impacts;
explore how to foster the positive impact of bioenergy production and expand our green energy supply to the region, through both mill and powerhouse optimization and efficiency projects;
work with cane farmers to foster sustainable and regenerative agriculture practices, which may include management systems designed to address soil health, carbon capture, crop residue management, fertiliser/ nutrient additive programs, land use change “in kind” remediation activities, and regional biodiversity/ ecosystem services awareness;
work with the Government of Belize to ensure a regulatory regime permits farmers and other landowners to credibly and sustainably use international carbon markets to benefit financially from the preservation of the beautiful, biodiverse indigenous landscapes and forests of Belize.
Appendix: Reflections on the methodologies used in the report.
We would like to extend our appreciation to both Fairtrade International and Soil & More for the opportunity to participate in this study. The outputs of the report and discussions about the process has brought useful insights to all parties involved. As a result, we modified some of our assessment models based upon the study recommendations. However, we disagree with some of the assumptions made in the study. In this appendix, we note both cases so that readers can understand the potential for uncertainly within the study before using the data.
ASR Group has agreed revisions to our models primarily from within the mill boundary, which is where our primary influence is controlled with direct management systems and data reporting.
Specifically, we have:
Accepted the methodology to use the offset principle for each Megawatt hour of production for the Mexico grid influence instead of the Belize grid emission factors.
Accepted the Nitrous oxide (N2O) and Methane (CH4) emissions factors identified from Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems (GEMIS) specific to bagasse, instead of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission factors for biofuels combustion, which were previous adopted. These factors will be further verified via stack testing and action research within the cogeneration facility.
Accepted the incorporation of “post-consumer end of life considerations” for packaging material management, though this is not currently considered “embodied carbon” but rather a step further toward full life cycle mitigation.
However, there are a number of assumptions that we disagree with, specifically:
We disagree with the adaptation of “Cool Farm Tool” from maize to sugarcane to estimate the farm influence of the data collected. This deviates from GHG protocol where individual uses and inputs should be quantified based on unique emission factors. We concede that the end state numbers were close to our existing model for farm influence, which uses FAO data, but the report noted much larger chemical additive and land management influences and lower fuel and logistical impact than is typical in sugarcane. This may affect the calculations of baseline carbon influence and strategies to reduce carbon impact.
All stakeholders agree that the sample size was too small to be statistically representative, with potential for error. This potential is most notable within the land use change findings. For this reason, in addition to primary data, the researcher also assessed average land use change based on both the available remote sensing data (Global Information Systems/ Satellite Data) in Northern Belize and the average national LUC data reports though recognized databases like the UN Food and Agriculture Organization statistics (FAO). The study did not determine which approach produced the more accurate results, and all three methods are presented equally in the study. However, we believe that the remote sensing data is more accurate and have quoted only the calculations based on the remote sensing data in our summary.
The study reflects the results of the GIS analysis; however, the data appears to overestimate the land under sugarcane, which will inflate the CO2e from Land Use Change. Based upon the county’s average yield data as reported though FAO, and the amount of cane received at the mill, we estimate that cane was grown on around 27,500 hectares of land in the north in 2021, while the report analysis assumes 52,000; yielding roughly a 47% excess contribution potential in LUC, land management, and farming practice theory.
We believe that the classification of sugarcane, a fast-growing tall grass, as an arable crop, is inherently flawed. Land conversion from forest to (sugarcane) grassland is likely to have a detrimental influence on carbon stock, whereas conversion from grassland to (sugarcane) grassland would likely have a sequestering effect. While we accept that this classification is supported by the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, it is our view that until protocols are established to quantify actual above ground and below ground carbon sequestration, such estimates will inherently carry significant error.