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.
◼ 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 |
|---|
Bibliographical 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 anddevelopment 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).
Access to Document
- CCAFS Info Note Comparison of GHG Accounting Tools 2018
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/