Comparison of online greenhouse gas accounting tools for agriculture. CCAFS Info Note

Kirsten MacSween; Diana Feliciano

Comparison of online greenhouse gas accounting tools for agriculture. CCAFS Info Note

Kirsten MacSween, Diana Feliciano

Research output: Book/Report › Other Report

9 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Key messages
◼ Six online greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting tools were identified and analyzed to determine their advantages and disadvantages to how they estimate GHG emissions and emission reductions and provide context-relevant mitigation options with details regarding mitigation potential and potential trade-offs.
◼ The tools are the CCAFS Mitigation Options Tool (CCAFS-MOT), the Agriculture and Land Use Greenhouse Gas Inventory (ALU) Software, the Small-Holder Agriculture Monitoring and Baseline Assessment (SHAMBA), the EX-Ante
Carbon-balance Tool (EX-ACT), the Cool Farm Tool (CFT), and the Carbon Benefits Project (CBP).
◼ This comparison aims to help potential users to better understand in which projects and activities the GHG accounting tools will be most relevant.
◼ Differential features include data required, emission factors used, whether mitigation options are identified, and usability at different geographic scales.

Original language	English
Place of Publication	The Netherlands
Publisher	CGIAR Research Program for Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
Commissioning body	CGIAR and advanced research institute
Number of pages	6
Publication status	Published - 22 Dec 2018

Publication series

Name	CCAFS Policy Briefs

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

CCAFS Info Note Comparison of GHG Accounting Tools 2018
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Final published version, 354 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

https://hdl.handle.net/10568/98869Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@book{d24fc9f4108f4450ac4f1bee7b335de3,

title = "Comparison of online greenhouse gas accounting tools for agriculture. CCAFS Info Note",

abstract = "Key messages ◼ Six online greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting tools were identified and analyzed to determine their advantages and disadvantages to how they estimate GHG emissions and emission reductions and provide context-relevant mitigation options with details regarding mitigation potential and potential trade-offs. ◼ The tools are the CCAFS Mitigation Options Tool (CCAFS-MOT), the Agriculture and Land Use Greenhouse Gas Inventory (ALU) Software, the Small-Holder Agriculture Monitoring and Baseline Assessment (SHAMBA), the EX-Ante Carbon-balance Tool (EX-ACT), the Cool Farm Tool (CFT), and the Carbon Benefits Project (CBP). ◼ This comparison aims to help potential users to better understand in which projects and activities the GHG accounting tools will be most relevant. ◼ Differential features include data required, emission factors used, whether mitigation options are identified, and usability at different geographic scales.",

author = "Kirsten MacSween and Diana Feliciano",

note = "Researchers at the University of Aberdeen, in partnership with the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) conducted this comparison. In addition to support from CCAFS and its donors, research and development of CCAFS- MOT has been supported by the British Research Council{\textquoteright}s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).",

year = "2018",

month = dec,

day = "22",

language = "English",

series = "CCAFS Policy Briefs",

publisher = "CGIAR Research Program for Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)",

}

TY - BOOK

T1 - Comparison of online greenhouse gas accounting tools for agriculture. CCAFS Info Note

AU - MacSween, Kirsten

AU - Feliciano, Diana

N1 - Researchers at the University of Aberdeen, in partnership with the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) conducted this comparison. In addition to support from CCAFS and its donors, research and development of CCAFS- MOT has been supported by the British Research Council’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

PY - 2018/12/22

Y1 - 2018/12/22

N2 - Key messages ◼ Six online greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting tools were identified and analyzed to determine their advantages and disadvantages to how they estimate GHG emissions and emission reductions and provide context-relevant mitigation options with details regarding mitigation potential and potential trade-offs. ◼ The tools are the CCAFS Mitigation Options Tool (CCAFS-MOT), the Agriculture and Land Use Greenhouse Gas Inventory (ALU) Software, the Small-Holder Agriculture Monitoring and Baseline Assessment (SHAMBA), the EX-Ante Carbon-balance Tool (EX-ACT), the Cool Farm Tool (CFT), and the Carbon Benefits Project (CBP). ◼ This comparison aims to help potential users to better understand in which projects and activities the GHG accounting tools will be most relevant. ◼ Differential features include data required, emission factors used, whether mitigation options are identified, and usability at different geographic scales.

AB - Key messages ◼ Six online greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting tools were identified and analyzed to determine their advantages and disadvantages to how they estimate GHG emissions and emission reductions and provide context-relevant mitigation options with details regarding mitigation potential and potential trade-offs. ◼ The tools are the CCAFS Mitigation Options Tool (CCAFS-MOT), the Agriculture and Land Use Greenhouse Gas Inventory (ALU) Software, the Small-Holder Agriculture Monitoring and Baseline Assessment (SHAMBA), the EX-Ante Carbon-balance Tool (EX-ACT), the Cool Farm Tool (CFT), and the Carbon Benefits Project (CBP). ◼ This comparison aims to help potential users to better understand in which projects and activities the GHG accounting tools will be most relevant. ◼ Differential features include data required, emission factors used, whether mitigation options are identified, and usability at different geographic scales.

M3 - Other Report

T3 - CCAFS Policy Briefs

BT - Comparison of online greenhouse gas accounting tools for agriculture. CCAFS Info Note

PB - CGIAR Research Program for Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)

CY - The Netherlands

ER -

Comparison of online greenhouse gas accounting tools for agriculture. CCAFS Info Note

Abstract

Publication series

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this