Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Carbon & Water Footprint of
Oranges and Strawberries
A Literature Review

December 2009

Authors:

Manuela Mordini
Dr. Thomas Nemecek
Dr. Gérard Gaillard
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART
Reckenholzstrasse 191
CH-8046 Zurich
Switzerland
http://www.agroscope.ch
Email: thomas.nemecek@art.admin.ch

Funding:

Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform Working Group on Fruits

Members of the SAI Platform Working Group on Fruits:
Idwin Bouman, Royal Friesland Campina
Ernesto Brovelli, Coca Cola Company
Sikke Meerman, Unilever
Diarmuid O’Connor, Nestlé
Guillaume Thomas, Danone Group
Mitch Willis, PepsiCo

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Contents
1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 62

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

3

LITERATURE REVIEW ON WATER USE .................................................................................................... 7
ANALYSIS OF THE PRODUCING COUNTRIES ............................................................................................ 7
CARBON FOOTPRINT OF ORANGES AND STRAWBERRIES ........................................................................ 7
WATER FOOTPRINT OF ORANGES AND STRAWBERRIES .......................................................................... 8

REVIEW OF METHODOLOGY OF WATER USE................................................................................ 9
3.1
WATER FOOTPRINT OF A PRODUCT / VIRTUAL WATER CONTENT OF A PRODUCT .................................. 9
3.1.1 Definition .......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Calculation of the Virtual Water Content of a Product..................................................................... 9
3.2
OTHER CONCEPTS TO ASSESS WATER USE IN THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ............................... 104

ANALYSIS OF THE PRODUCING COUNTRIES................................................................................ 11
4.1
4.2

5

ORANGES .................................................................................................................................................. 13
5.1
5.2

6

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF ORANGES ....................................................................................................... 13
WATER FOOTPRINT OF ORANGES ......................................................................................................... 19

STRAWBERRIES ...................................................................................................................................... 22
6.1
6.2

7

PRODUCTION OF ORANGES ................................................................................................................... 11
PRODUCTION OF STRAWBERRIES .......................................................................................................... 11

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF STRAWBERRIES .............................................................................................. 22
WATER FOOTPRINT OF STRAWBERRIES ................................................................................................ 27

CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................... 30
7.1
7.2
7.3

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 30
CARBON FOOTPRINT OF ORANGES AND STRAWBERRIES ...................................................................... 30
WATER FOOTPRINT OF ORANGES AND STRAWBERRIES ........................................................................ 31

8

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 32

9APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 34
9.1
REPORT: REVIEW ON THE STATE OF THE ART TO QUANTIFY WATER USE ............................................ 34
9.2
LITERATURE REVIEW CF AND WF: DETAILS ON SOURCES................................................................... 40
9.2.1 Literature for Oranges Included in the Analysis ............................................................................. 40
9.2.2 Literature for Strawberries Included in the Analysis ...................................................................... 44
9.2.3 Literature for Oranges Excluded from the detailed Analysis .......................................................... 48
9.2.4 Literature for Strawberries Excluded from the detailed Analysis ................................................... 55
9.2.5 Contacted Research Institutes and Researchers for Oranges ......................................................... 61
9.2.6 Contacted Research Institutes and Researchers for Strawberries .................................................. 65
9.3
PRODUCING COUNTRIES: DETAILED DATA ORANGES .......................................................................... 70
9.4
PRODUCING COUNTRIES: DETAILED DATA STRAWBERRIES ................................................................. 74

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 20092/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Abbreviations
ART

Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

CF

Carbon Footprint

CH4

MethaneCO2

Carbon dioxide

CO2-eq.

CO2-equivalents

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FASS

Florida Agricultural Statistics Service

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

IP

Integrated production

LCA

Life Cycle Assessment

N2O

Nitrous oxideOF

Organic farming

SAI Platform

Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform

USA

United States of America

VWC

Virtual Water Content

WF

Water Footprint

WGWA

Working Group on Water and Agriculture

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 20093/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Executive Summary
A literature review of existing publications and data on the carbon footprint (CF) and water footprint(WF) for oranges and strawberries with a focus on countries selected by the SAI Platform Working
Group on Fruits has been performed. The selected countries were Brazil, China, Florida and Spain fororanges and China, Morocco and Poland for the strawberries. Only data for the agricultural production
were of interest. As no or only little information is published for the CF in the selected countries forboth products the SAI Platform Working Group on Fruits decided to consider also data from othercountries and studies where not only the agricultural part of the production but also the whole life
cycle was analysed.
A total of 35 sources have been evaluated for oranges and 31 sources for strawberries with respect to
the CF. After an evaluation 26 source for oranges and 23 sources for oranges have been excluded froma further analysis. 9 sources for oranges and 7 sources for strawberries were analysed in depth withrespect to the CF resp. the GHG emissions. In 4 sources the CF was calculated for the whole life cycleof orange juice production. To be able to compare these values with the ones that reported data on the
agricultural phase of the production the values of the orange juices have been converted. Data on GHG
emissions for oranges were found for Brazil, Italy and Spain and for strawberries for Spain, Japan andthe United Kingdom.
The literature review showed that only a few publications report data on the CF of oranges for the
agricultural production. Some data are documented for the whole production chain of orange juice.
The agricultural production stage in these publications is either not specified at all or just reported as a
general value. The analysis of the sources showed that the CF for oranges is between 0.08 to 0.33 kg
CO2-eq./kg oranges harvested. The reported values for Spain were higher than for Brazil and Italy(only one source). As the system boundaries are not always clear or they are not defined in a similarsame way a comparison of the values is difficult. According to the evaluated sources, the key input
factors leading to GHG emissions in the agricultural production seem to be associated with thefertiliser production and application but the GHG emissions also differ depending on the fertilisers andpesticides applied, the agricultural practices performed, the machinery and irrigation system used aswell as on the production system. Diesel use in the context of irrigation and the country of origin
respectively the production region seem to be important as well.
For the CF of strawberries the review showed that only little data on the CF is available frompublished literature. The CF of strawberries from the analysed sources varies from 0.27 to 3.99 kg
CO2-eq./kg strawberries. The lowest figures have been reported for Spain, higher ones for the UK andthe highest for Japan, but the values are difficult to compare. Several production techniques areapplied in the strawberry production (e.g. plastic tunnels, greenhouses, different growth media) andthe key drivers for the GHG emissions seem to vary with the production system (e.g. growth media,
protection, glasshouse, open field). The key input factors of the GHG emissions in the agricultural
production seem to be the production and the waste transport and disposal of the polyethylene fromthe polytunnels (when used for the production, the growth medium and pesticides. The country oforigin respectively the production region seems to matter as well.
Only one source provides data on the WF (i.e. virtual water content, VWC) of oranges andstrawberries. The green and blue components are not documented separately. In the case of oranges
the VWC is reported as a single value for the countries Brazil, China, Italy, Spain and the USA. It
varies between 0.149 and 0.490 m3/kg oranges. In the case of strawberries the VWC is reported for thecountries China, Morocco, Poland, Japan, Spain and the United Kingdom. It is between 0.190 and
0.876 m3/kg strawberries. Additional literature on irrigation that has been analysed shows that thewater use may differ depending on soil and irrigation type, used growth media, protection system
usedas well as the yield. Furthermore, the average VWC may vary significantly over time and space,especially for countries with a great spatial variation of climate (e.g. China, USA). The reported
figures are 0.148-0.229 m3/kg oranges, 3’520-6’000 m3/ha orange plantation. For strawberries, 0.096Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 20094/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

0.299 m3/kg and 1’000-5’200 m3/ha were reported. It seems that the VWC does not or only
insufficiently cover these aspects as the value is based on average climate data and only calculated foropen systems. This fact might be especially important in the case of strawberries as in some countries
a high percentage of strawberries is grown under covered systems.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 20095/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

1 Introduction
The presented project “Fruit Carbon & Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries” has been
mandated and funded by the SAI Platform Working Group on Fruits. Its scope was to perform aliterature review of existing publications and data on the carbon footprint (CF) and water footprint(WF) for oranges and strawberries with a focus on countries selected by the SAI Platform Working
Group on Fruits, namely Brazil, China, Florida and Spain for oranges and China, Morocco and Poland
for the strawberries. Only data for the agricultural production were of interest. Special focus was put
on studies observing LCA principles. Data on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were intended tobe collected for the emissions CO2, N2O and CH4. A global picture of the carbon and water footprints
of oranges and strawberries, the identification of influencing factors for these footprints as well as
their relative importance were of interest.
A first evaluation of the available literature showed that no or only little information is published for
the CF in the selected countries for both products. Therefore, the SAI Platform Working Group on
Fruits decided to consider also data from other countries and studies where not only the agriculturalpart of the production but also the whole life cycle was analysed.
In chapter 2, the methodologies applied for the review on water use in agricultural production, theanalysis of the producing countries and the literature review on the CF and WF of oranges andstrawberries are described. A review of the methodology of water use in the agricultural production
including the definition and calculation of the WF of a product respectively the virtual water content(VWC) of a product and a short description of other concepts to assess water use is reported in chapter
3. Chapter 4 contains a brief analysis of the producing countries of oranges and strawberries on thebasis of statistics from the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and theFlorida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS) as well as some additional country specific information.
The results of the literature review on the CF and WF of oranges respectively strawberries arepresented and discussed in the chapters 5 respectively 6. The conclusions drawn from the results of theliterature review are reported in chapter 7.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 20096/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

2 Methodology
2.1 Literature Review on Water Use
The assessment of water resources is a relatively new topic. Therefore a brief literature review on thestate of the art to quantify the water use (e.g. water footprint) in agriculture has been performed.
Scientific papers, reports, books, posters, and websites were reviewed. Information on relevant
definitions, LCI inputs and outputs, impact pathways, impact characterisation, weighing andnormalisation, and impact categories for the different methods were gathered. A special focus has been
put on some of the established LCA methods and how they assess the use of water resources.

2.2 Analysis of the Producing Countries
Data on the area harvested, the production and yield from 2003 to 2007 have been analysed forstrawberries and oranges by using FAO statistical data (2009). The aim was to quantify the worldwide
production and to get an overview on the main producing countries and the ones selected by the SAI
platform Working Group on Fruits (i.e. Brazil, China, Spain, and USA representing Florida fororanges and China, Morocco and Poland for strawberries). Data consistency has been checked bybuilding mean values and some data sets have been excluded, because either data on the production or
the area harvested were not reported for them. For the selected countries by the SAI platform a 20
years analysis (1988-2007) of the data has been performed in order to visualise general production
trends.
In addition, data of the orange production, the bearing area1 and yields have been analysed for Florida
and the United States of America (USA) for the period 1987/88-2006/07. The aim was to see howmuch Florida contributed to the whole orange production of the USA as data for Florida are notdocumented in the FAO statistics. Data consistency has been checked by calculating mean values. In
the statistics the data are reported per production period and not for one year (Florida Agricultural
Statistics Service, 2009).
When considered as important for the present report, some country specific additional information on
production systems from other publications has been integrated.

2.3 Carbon Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries
The literature review has been performed mainly on a web basis with keywords (e.g. carbon footprint,
greenhouse gas emissions for oranges resp. strawberries). Official national websites, websites ofuniversities, research institutes, NGO’s and industries were browsed as well. In addition to that, anumber of research institutes and researchers have been contacted (Appendices 9.2.5 and 9.2.6).
A total of 35 sources have been evaluated for oranges from which 26 have been excluded after a firstand second, more detailed evaluation, for strawberries a total of 31 sources have been evaluated and23 have been excluded. For the excluded sources refer to Appendices 9.2.3. and 9.2.4. The main
reasons for this exclusion were that some sources provided information on GHG emissions but not
explicitly for oranges or strawberries, some sources gave information that was based on a primarysource already included in the present analysis (i.e. redundant information) and some sources only
listed the data inventory without having calculated the emissions from the production.

1

Bearing area: The area of fruit crops that have reached a commercially productive bearing age. This age varies
by crop, by area, and by producer (Source: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_York/Publications/Agricultural_Chemical_Use/FruitChemuse/Terms.pdf).
Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 20097/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9 sources for oranges (Appendix 9.2.1) and 7 sources for strawberries (Appendix 9.2.2) were analysed
in depth with respect to the CF resp. the GHG emissions. Data on GHG emissions for oranges were
found for Brazil, Italy and Spain. For strawberries the countries were Spain, Japan and the UK.
In 4 sources the CF was calculated for the whole life cycle of orange juice production. To be able tocompare these values with the ones that reported data on the agricultural part of the production thevalues of the orange juices have been converted. The assumptions and calculation steps for theseconversions are described in Chapters 5.1 and 5.2.

2.4 Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries
There are several methods and concepts to assess and quantify water use in the agricultural production(see section 3.2). To assure a consistent application in assessing water use within the SAI Platform, theWorking Group on Fruits has decided to focus on the methodology proposed by the SAI Platform
Working Group on Water and Agriculture (WGWA). According to a discussion paper from SAI
Platform (2009) the WGWA is actually working on the water footprint methodology and its
application. The literature review was performed with by web search and by contacting experts indifferent countries (see Appendices 9.2.5 and 9.2.6).
Only one source provides data on the virtual water content2 (VWC) of oranges and strawberries(Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2004a, b). One other source with information on the VWC for fruits in China(Liu & Savenije, 2008) was excluded from further analysis as data had been estimated based on apples(Appendices 9.2.1and 9.2.2).
The VWC is reported as a single value for a certain country and product and is based on data from1999 to 2001. Although the green and blue components were taken into account in the calculations by
Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b) they are not documented separately. Data on the VWC with adistinction between the green and blue component will be published in approximately one year3.
The VWC is given in m3/kg of a certain product (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2004a; 2004b). To put thesingle VWC values in a broader context and to be able to discuss them, these have been converted in
m3/ha by using data on the yields from Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b). In addition, some
information on irrigation was gathered based on the same literature that was analysed for the carbon
footprint and on information from contacted researchers.

2
3

The water footprint of a product is the same as its virtual water content (see section 3.1.1).
Personal communication A.Y. Hoekstra, Scientific Director, Water Footprint Network, 19.10.2009.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 20098/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

3 Review of Methodology of Water Use
The assessment of water use in agricultural production is becoming increasingly important. Different
concepts to quantify water use in agricultural systems do exist. The SAI Platform Working Group on
Fruits decided to focus on the concept of the water footprint (WF) of a product resp. the virtual watercontent (VWC) of a product (see section 2.4). In the following section, information on the definitionof the WF resp. VWC and on the main points of its calculation is provided. Furthermore, some otherconcepts to quantify water use will be briefly outlined.

3.1 Water Footprint of a Product / Virtual Water Content of a Product3.1.1

Definition

The water footprint (WF) of a product is the same as its virtual4 water content (VWC). The VWC of a
product is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to produce a product, i.e. a commodity,
good or service. It is measured at the place where the product is produced and given for a certain time
period Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b). The VWC of a product is composed of the green, blueand gray component. For the agricultural products these components are defined as follows (WFN,2009):
1. The green VWC of an agricultural product corresponds to the total volume of rainwater
evaporated from the field and transpirated by the plants during the growing period of the crop.
2. The blue VWC of an agricultural product refers to volume of water abstracted from water
bodies (surface water or groundwater) and evaporated during the production. It is the sum of
the evaporation of irrigation water from the field and the evaporation of water from irrigation
canals and artificial storage reservoirs.
3. The gray VWC of an agricultural product is the volume of water that is required to dilute
pollutants emitted to the natural water system during the production process to such an extent
that the quality of the ambient water remains beyond agreed water quality standards.
The definitions correspond to those used in the SAI Platform discussion paper on Water Footprint
from the WGWA (SAI Platform, 2009).

3.1.2

Calculation of the Virtual Water Content of a Product

The reported VWC of a particular primary crop (e.g. oranges, strawberries) is calculated with data on
the volume of water that is used for the production of the crop at farm level and the total volume of acrop that is produced per year in a country. The calculation of the total volume of water used to
produce a particular crop is based on production, yield and “crop water requirement” data. The latter isused as an indicator of actual crop water use and refers to the evapotranspiration under optimal growth
conditions i.e. adequate soil water is maintained by rainfall and/or irrigation so that it does not limit
plant growth and crop yield (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2004a; 2004b). Therefore, actual crop water use
is overestimated when a crop is grown under water shortage or if a grown crop tolerates water stressand is managed under water shortage (SAI Platform, 2009). On the contrary, irrigation losses anddrainage water are excluded from the calculations of the VWC what leads to an underestimation of thewater needed to grow certain crops (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2004a; 2004b).

4

Water is termed as „virtual“ as most of the water used to produce the product is not contained in the final
product (WFN, 2009).
Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 20099/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Own calculations of the green and blue components would be possible by applying the method used in
the book by Hoekstra & Chapagain (2008), but this was out of scope in the present project. The
necessary data can be taken from the FAO tools CROPWAT, CLIMWAT and FAOSTAT5.

3.2 Other Concepts to Assess Water Use in the Agricultural Production
In addition to the WF resp. VWC concept in the literature review 8 other methods to quantify water
use were analysed. The Ecological Scarcity Method 2006 (Frischknecht et al., 2009), ReCiPe 2008
(Goedkoop et al., 2009) and EDIP 1997 (Wenzel et al., 2000), Milà i Canals et al. (2009), Pfister et al.
(2009) and Bayart et al. (submitted) are LCA methods in which water use is taken into account. Other
approaches that are not based on LCA principles are the Global Water Tool (WBCSD, 2007) and theOECD Key Environmental Factors (OECD, 2004).
The concepts differ mainly in the required input data and their explanatory power. The assessment ofwater use with EDIP 1997 for example requires less data than with the method of (Bayart et al.,submitted) but provides also less information on the impacts.
The full report is given in Appendix 9.1.

5

Personal communication A.Y. Hoekstra, Scientific Director, Water Footprint Network, 19.10.2009.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200910/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

4 Analysis of the Producing Countries
The orange and strawberry production has been analysed. The main points of this analysis are outlinedin the following section. For more detailed data on oranges refer to Appendix 9.3 and to Appendix 9.4
for strawberries.

4.1 Production of Oranges
The main producing country for the time period 2003 to 2007 was Brazil with 28.3 % of the world
production followed by the USA (14.5 %) and Mexico (6.4 %), India (5.0 %), Spain (4.5 %) andChina (4.1 %). The largest areas harvested were in Brazil, India and China and the highest yields wereobtained in Turkey, the USA and Indonesia (FAO, 2009).
In Brazil about 70 % of the total orange production is delivered to frozen concentrated orange juice
processors. Usually, the yields in Brazil are relatively low (20'000-25'000 kg per hectare). The main
factors leading to low yields are wide spacing, inadequate tillage practices, applications of fertilisers
and soil acidity correctors as well as the absence of a good pest management. In well managed andtightly spaced orchards yields of over 40'000 kg per ha can be produced (Coltro et al., 2009).
For the time period 2003 to 2007 the mean yield in China amounted to about 7'500 kg/ha only (FAO,
2009). When comparing this with the information from Coltro et al. (2009) such a yield has to beconsidered as very low. According to Houjiu (2001), most citrus plantations in China are very small
and this is one factor that explains these figures.
Data for the time period 2002/03 to 2006/07 show that the main producing state in the USA with about
80% of the total production and about 73 % of the total bearing area was Florida. The mean yield in
Florida (38’700 kg/ha) was a little bit higher than in the USA (35’000 kg/ha) (Florida Agricultural
Statistics Service, 2009).
Spain is also one of the main producing countries for oranges. A large proportion is produced in theregion Comunidad Valenciana (Sanjuán et al., 2005). The oranges produced in Italy are primarily fornational consumption including industry uses (Beccali et al., 2009).

4.2 Production of Strawberries
The main producer of strawberries is the USA with approximately 28 % of the total strawberry
production in the world. They also have the 3rd largest area harvested and are ranked at number one interms of yield in the world (50’200 kg/ha) (FAO, 2009).
The analysed FAO data for strawberries show a mean production of 11’650 resp. 7’764 metric tonnes
per year in China for the periods 2003 to 2007 and 1988 to 2007 (FAO, 2009). The estimatedproduction of fresh strawberries for the season 2009/2010 is 1.8 Million metric tonnes on an estimatedcultivation acreage of 120’000 hectares (USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2009). The yieldcalculated with these estimates is 15’000 kg/ha. When comparing the data from these two sources alarge difference is obvious. It is possible that China has rapidly expanded its production lately so that
FAO data are not up to date anymore. Roudeillac (2007) assumes that the FAO only reports values
from Taiwan and therefore a discrepancy in production data from different sources occurs. When
analysing data from China (e.g. the VWC that is based on yield data from FAO statistics) this fact has
to be considered. In China, about 70 to 80 % of the strawberries are grown in greenhouses and 20 to
30 % in open fields6.
The production in Morocco is mainly located in the Northern part of the country, south of the city
Larache. The strawberry seedlings that are planted are often imports from Spain or France (Bosc &6

Personal communication Dr. Yun-Tao Zhang, 10.10.2009.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200911/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Mention, 2008). The Moroccan production data seem to be rough estimations, especially when looking
at the period from 1995 to 2000. There is was major increase in the production due to increasing
yields; the harvested area remained constant. When using data from FAO for Morocco the uncertainty
in data has to be taken into consideration.
Poland has remarkably low yields (3’300 kg/ha) compared to the other producing countries. It is
ranked at the 70th position from the total of 76 countries (FAO, 2009). The rather low yields are aconsequence of the cultivation on small farms where possibilities for irrigation during drought periods
are lacking (Makowska et al., 2005). Only a few percents of the strawberry plantations are irrigated7.
A case study on integrated fruit production of strawberries report that the average yields are at least
doubled when compared to conventional production systems (UNEP, 2002).
In Spain suppliers have concentrated their fresh strawberry production during the winter months. Most
crops are grown in annual monoculture and in soil. Polyethylene clad tunnels are used for theprotection of most crops where about 90 % are micro-tunnels and 10 % are macro-tunnels. There is anextensive use of soil fumigation. Spanish strawberry producers had an exemption from the ban on theusage of methyl bromide for soil fumigation until the end of 2007 but it is not clear if all stocks in
Spain have been used yet. In the interpretation of results from studies, even from recent ones, this
aspect should be considered (Williams et al., 2008).
In the United Kingdom (UK) there are about 14 main production systems. Including subsystems there
are in total 21 systems. The variations include the growth medium (soil, substrate, coir peat, raisedbag, table bag), crop variety (June bearer, ever-bearer), planting time (spring planted, summer
planted), years of cropping (one to three), polytunnel and the use of soil fumigation (fumigated or not
fumigated). There is only little organic production (Williams et al., 2008).

7

Personal communication Waldemar Treder, Research Institute of Pomology and Floriculture, Poland,
30.09.2009.
Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200912/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

5 Oranges
5.1 Carbon Footprint of Oranges
Data on the GHG emissions for orange production was found for Brazil, Italy and Spain. Two detailed
studies from Spain report the GHG emissions for different production steps of the agricultural phase oforange production in Spain (Ribal et al., in press; Sanjuán et al., 2005), one publication calculated theemissions for Italian oranges and orange juices (Beccali et al., 2009) and in four sources the emissions
are quantified for Brazilian orange juice (Munasinghe et al., 2009; PepsiCo UK & Ireland, 2008;
Tesco, 2009; Tropicana, 2009). A mean value for the GHG emissions related to oranges imported toSweden from different countries is published in Wallén et al. (2004). Kramer et al. (1999) gives avalue for oranges consumed in the Netherlands. The evaluated sources are described in more detail in
the following parts. Table 1 provides an overview on the CF from the different sources.
A detailed LCA of integrated orange production in Spain (Comunidad Valenciana) was performed by
Sanjuán et al. (2005). Only the agricultural phase of the orange production was investigated. Eightdifferent scenarios were taken into account. The analysis of the GHG emissions showed that the main
emissions for all scenarios arise from the fertiliser production and from direct field emissions although
the production of the manure applied is outside the system boundaries. The fertilisers applied differ
with the irrigation system (i.e. other fertilisers are applied under drip than under gravity irrigation).
The results showed that the fertilisers used under drip irrigation contributed more to the emissions thanthose applied under gravity irrigation. Fertiliser production has a higher impact in the drip irrigation
system than in the gravity irrigation system, but the authors did not state the exact reason. However,drip irrigation implies higher water efficiency and lower nitrate leaching. The pesticide production
contributes less to the GHG emissions in tillage scenarios than in non tillage scenarios but tillage
systems entail more toxic herbicides and tillage practices also affect soil characteristics and fertility.
The highest emissions from machinery and irrigation arouse if irrigation was a combination ofgroundwater and drip irrigation whereas gravity irrigation in combination with surface water use
resulted in the lowest emissions, probably due to less fossil fuels used for irrigation. The diesel energy
used in these systems seems to be the main driver for these scenarios. However, although surface
water use implies lower GHG emissions, access to surface water is limited or even impossible forsome farmers. The agricultural phase including the practices performed on the farm contributed to thesame degree to the emissions in all scenarios. Some more detailed data published for one scenario
show that 55 % of the total GHG emissions come from CO2 emissions whereof 66 % are due toammonium nitrate production. The N20 emissions amount to 35 % of the total GHG emissions
whereof more than 90 % result from the denitrification in the agricultural phase (Sanjuán et al., 2005).
Ribal et al. (in press) investigated the orange production in Spain (Comunidad Valenciana) for
integrated production (IP) and organic farming (OF). 24 different scenarios have been taken into
account. The manure production was not included in the calculations. The results showed that in the IP
mineral fertilisers had the highest impact. The CO2 and CH4 emissions contributed to a large extent to
the total GHG emissions due to the production of chemical fertilisers. It is not stated in the paper from
where the CH4 emissions arise during the chemical fertiliser production. The agricultural practices
contributed also much to the GHG emissions in consequence of the N20 emissions from soil
denitrification. The agricultural practices had the highest impacts in OF scenarios due to the emissions
from manure spreading. However, the impact that arouse from the fertiliser production in IP scenarios
was still higher than the one caused by manure application. The shredding of the pruning leftovers
instead of the burning was also associated with lower emission in the OF. The application ofherbicides did not have much influence on the GHG emission in both production systems (Ribal et al.,in press).
Beccali et al. (2009) performed a LCA study on the whole life cycle of natural and concentrated
orange juices in Italy. The fertiliser, herbicide and pesticide production contributed about 38 % for
Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200913/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

natural juices and 30 % for concentrated juices to the total GHG emissions from the whole life cycle.
The emissions associated with diesel use in the cultivation stage were about 10 % of the total
emissions for natural juice and 8 % for concentrated juice (Beccali et al., 2009). The emissions fromthe cultivation and crop stage are in total 0.10 kg CO2-eq./kg oranges harvested whereof 40% arise
from CO2 emissions and 60% from N2O emissions8.
Tesco (2009) analysed three natural juices and one concentrated orange juice from Brazil with respect
to the CF. The CF is broken down into five lifecycle stages (production, distribution, store, use andend of life waste management) but no specific data are given for the agricultural phase (TESCO,2009). The raw material production driven by inorganic fertilisers used by the supplier should be themain factor of the emissions (Carbon Trust, 2008)9. But is not stated in the publication what isincluded in the raw material production and no specific values are documented in this publication.
Munasinghe et al. (2009) published data for the production steps of Tesco orange juice from Brazil10.
The raw material production there is reported as 28 % of the total life cycle CF but it is not specified if
the raw material production only includes the agricultural part of the production or other production
steps too. There is a contradiction when comparing the statement from the Carbon Trust (2008) thatthe main factor for the GHG emissions should be the raw material production when it only amounts to
28 % of the total CF. As no further information is documented in both publications, it is not possible
to reconstruct this discrepancy, but it probably due to another definition of the raw material
production.
PepsiCo UK & Ireland (2008) calculated the whole life cycle of the Tropicana Pure Premium orange
juice. The CF for the whole life cycle is reported as 1.1 kg CO2-eq./litre orange juice. From that value,
37 % stem from orange growing and juicing. Tropicana (2009) published more details on the CF of theTropicana Pure Premium juices but reported another figure for the total CF (0.94 kg CO2-eq./litre
orange juice). 60 % of the total GHG emissions come from the juice production step, whereof 58 %are due to the fertiliser production and application (Tropicana, 2009). The values calculated for the
Tropicana orange juices are based on data from Florida and were extrapolated to the Brazilian orange
juice production11.
Wallén et al. (2004) investigated the annual greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production
and consumption in Sweden. It is not clear which countries had been included in the calculations andhow the calculations have been performed in detail. The GHG emissions are given in CO2-eq per kg oforanges consumed. The total value is 0.25 kg CO2-eq./kg of oranges consumed. This figure includes
the cultivation of oranges, their processing, transport and distribution to consumers in Sweden.
Considering that post farm life cycle phases are included, the calculated value seems rather low
compared to the other sources (refer to Table 1).
Kramer et al. (1999) have calculated the total emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4 from the purchase oforanges and the GHG emissions per household food consumption in the Netherlands (21.11 kg CO2eq. per household orange consumption). In addition to the agricultural emissions, emissions from otherlife cycle steps such as distribution are included in the total value, which makes it not comparable tothe other figures analysed. Similarly to Wallén et al. (2004), it was not possible to disaggregate theresults in order to estimate the CF per kg of oranges harvested.
8

Figures calculated on the basis of data on CO2 and N2O emissions of the cultivation stage from Beccali et al.
(2009) with the IPCC 2001 factors.
9
The Carbon Trust labelled the Tesco orange juices with respect to their CF (Carbon Trust, 2008).
10
Munasinghe et al. (2008) refer to 1 litre of Tesco fresh squeezed chilled orange juice. As the value of the CF
is not specified in the publication, it is assumed that they refer to the Tesco pure orange juice (1 litre) with a total
CF of 0.96 kg CO2-eq./litres.
11
Personal communication Mitch Willis, PepsiCo, member of the SAI Platform Working Group on Fruits,
08.10.2009.
Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200914/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

A summary of the values on the CF is given in Table 1 and the value are visualised in Figure 112. The
comparison of the CF of oranges from the different sources shows that the values vary considerablyfrom 0.08 to 0.33 kg CO2-eq./kg oranges harvested. The comparison of the different countries
analysed shows that in Spain the GHG emissions from the agricultural production are higher than in
Brazil and Italy (only one figure). It seems that the CF is influenced by the producing country (i.e. thelocation where the oranges are produced). The figure shows also that the CF can vary within a
producing country, too. The mean CF for organic farming in Spain for example is lower than the one
from integrated production (Ribal et al., in press).
However, only little convincing data to determine the CF of oranges are published. When analysing
the values it has to be considered that the CF values were not calculated based on the same
methodology and the system boundaries are different (refer to Table 2). Furthermore it is not clear
enough where the production data comes from (e.g. statistical data, data from suppliers). A directcomparison of the values is therefore complicated. Furthermore, it has to be considered that the values
have been recalculated based on different assumptions in order to make them comparable (see Table
1). Due to these differences and uncertainties, the explanatory power of the values and a deeper
interpretation is limited.

kg CO2-eq./kg oranges harvested

Carbon Footprint of Oranges
based on Different Sources
0.40

Ribal et al. (in press). Integrated production.
Ribal et al. (in press). Organic farming.

0.30

Sanjuán et al. (2005)
Beccali et al. (2009)

0.20

PepsiCo UK & Ireland (2008)
Tropicana (2009)

0.10

Tesco (2009)
Munasinghe et al. (2009)

0.00

Spain

Italy

BrazilFigure 1: Carbon footprint of oranges from different sources based on the values listed in Table 1.

12

The data from Wallen et al. (2004) and Kramer et al. (1999) have not been included as they are notcomparable to the other values.
Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200915/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Table 1: Total carbon footprint respectively production carbon footprint for oranges from different sources. Values in italics have been calculated on the basis of the
published figures. For detailed information on the system boundaries and the methodology used to calculate the CF refer to Table 2.
SourceProducingCountry

Product

Carbon Footprint (CF)
Total

Agricultural Production

kg CO2-eq. per
litre natural orange
juice

litre concentrated
orange juice

kg CO2-eq. per

kg natural orange
juice

kg concentrated
orange juice

kg oranges
harvested

Ribal et al. (inpress)

Spain

Oranges from integrated
production

0.33a

Ribal et al. (inpress)

Spain

Oranges from organic
farming

0.22

Sanjuán et al.
(2005)

Spain

Oranges from integrated
production

0.25
1.00

a

a

0.10b

Beccali et al. (2009) Italy

Oranges

PepsiCo UK &Ireland (2008)

BrazilTropicana orange juice

1.10

1.05c

0.12

37d

Tropicana (2009)

BrazileTropicana Pure Premiumorange juice

0.94

0.90c

0.16

60f

Tesco (2009)

Brazil3 natural and 1 concentrated orange juice

1.09g

0.09

28i

Munasinghe et al.
(2009)

BrazilTesco freshly squeezed
chilled orange juice

0.96j

0.08

28k

1.04

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

1.04c
0.92c

16/76

6.00

in % of the total
natural juice inlitres0.83h

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ARTa

Mean value of the total CF from all scenarios calculated with help of detailed data received from Neus Sanjuán (personal communication, 26.10.2009).
The CF has been calculated by the authors of the present report with the published data by Beccali et al. (2009) on the CO2 and N2O emissions from the cultivation stage with
the IPCC 2001 factors (CO2 -factor = 1, N2O-factor = 296).
c
The value has been calculated with the following assumptions: 1. Specific gravity of natural orange juice (20°) = 1.047 kg/l (Source: Sandhu, K.S. & Minhas, K.S., 2007.
Oranges and Citrus Juices. In: Hui, Y.H., Handbook of Fruits and Fruit Processing, 1 ed, 309-358. Blackwell Publishing.) 2. 0.3 kg natural orange juice corresponds to 1 kgoranges harvested (calculated with inventory data published by Beccali et al. (2009)).
d
The value includes growing and juicing i.e. not only the agricultural part of the production. The CF seems to have been estimated for orange juice consumed in the UK.
ePersonal communication Mitch Willis, PepsiCo, member of the SAI Platform Working Group on Fruits, 08.10.2009: The values calculated for the Tropicana orange juices are
based on data from Florida and were extrapolated to the Brazilian orange juice production.
f
The value includes fertiliser production and application, natural gas, electricity and transportation as the agricultural production is not reported separately. 58 % of the
production value are from fertiliser production and application. It is not stated in which country the juice is consumed.
gMean value of the CF from all natural juices reported in the source.
h
The value has been calculated with the following assumptions: 1. Specific gravity of concentrated blood orange juice = 1.25 kg/l (Source: http://obiolla.com/boj50.aspx) 2. 0.03
kg concentrated orange juice corresponds to 1 kg oranges harvested (calculated with inventory data published by Beccali et al. (2009)).
i
The total CF for natural juice in litres is the mean value of the CF of 3 products (pure squeezed orange juice; pure orange juice, 1 litre; pure orange juice,3*200 millilitres). The
percentage for the production is published for the whole production stage (range 88 to 93 %) but not for the agricultural part of the production. As Munasinghe et al. (2009) referin their publication to orange juice from Tesco (2009), it is assumed by the authors of the present report that the value stated in Munasinghe et al. (2009) for the raw material
production approximates the agricultural part of the production for the Tesco orange juices. The value refers to natural juices.
j
To calculate the CF for the raw material production the value for the total CF used in the present report was taken for the pure orange juice (1 litre) from Tesco (2009).
k
The report only documents the percentages of the different life cycle stages of the total CF. Raw material production is reported as 28 % of the total CF across the life cycle. It is
not stated what exactly is included in the raw material production, so that it is assumed that this value approximates the agricultural part of the production.
b

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200917/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Table 2: Information on the system boundaries and the methodology used to calculate the CF for oranges.
SourceProducingCountry
Spain

Product

Methodology

System boundary

Oranges from integrated
production

LCA (CML 2001)

Ribal et al. (inpress)

Spain

Oranges from organic
farming

LCA (CML 2001)

Sanjuán et al.
(2005)

Spain

Oranges from integrated
production

LCA (WMO method)

Beccali et al.
(2009)

Italy

Oranges

IPCC 2001 (GWP100)

PepsiCo UK &Ireland (2008)

BrazilTropicana orange juice

LCA (ISO 14040)

Integrated agriculture. Agricultural part of the production on a plantation of less than 4 ha
(representative case for actual plantations in the Comunidad Valenciana, Spain) where 24 scenarios(including organic farming, see below) have been analysed. Fertiliser and pesticide production,
machinery and irrigation and agricultural practices are included. Manure production, the transport offertilisers and pesticides and the fabrication and maintenance were not included in the study.
Organic farming. Agricultural part of the production on a plantation of less than 4 ha (representative
case for actual plantations in the Comunidad Valenciana, Spain) where 24 scenarios (including
integrated farming, see above) have been analysed. Fertiliser and pesticide production, machinery andirrigation and agricultural practices are included. Manure production, the transport of fertilisers andpesticides and the fabrication and maintenance were not included in the study.
Integrated agricultural part of the production in the Comunidad Valenciana, Spain, including fertiliser
and pesticide production, machinery and irrigation and agricultural practices. Manure production, thetransport of fertilisers and pesticides and the construction and maintenance were not included.
1. Agricultural part (cultivation and crop) in Sicily, Italy for the year 2005. The use of fertilisers,
herbicides and pesticides, fuel (diesel) and irrigation water as well as production and transportation of
raw materials and fuels are included.
2. The whole life cycle of natural/concentrated juice production in Sicily, Italy for the year 2005
including agricultural production (cultivation and crop), production and transport of raw materials andfuels, manufacturing process, packing process as well as transport of the final product to distribution
firms. The construction of facilities and equipment, the market phase, use and disposal of organic
residues and packaging are not included.
The whole life cycle including orange growing and juicing in Brazil, cross-atlantic shipping, bottling,
distribution, supermarket refrigeration and packing supply chain. More details on the system boundaries
and possible excluded in- or outputs are not published.

Tropicana (2009)

BrazilTesco (2009)

BrazilTropicana Pure Premium LCA (calculation method Full life cycle analysis including growing and squeezing, manufacturing energy use, the distances or raw
orange juice
not specified)materials and packing transport, transport of the final product from the factories to the supermarkets.
More details on the system boundaries and possible excluded inputs or outputs are not published.
3 natural and 1 concenPAS2050 (draft version) Full life cycle analysis including orange juice production, distribution, store, use and end of life waste
trated orange juice
management. More details on the system boundaries and possible excluded inputs or outputs are notpublished.
Tesco freshly squeezed
PAS 2050 (version not
As they refer to Tesco orange juice it is assumed that the system boundaries are the same as in Tesco
chilled orange juice
specified).
(2009).

Ribal et al. (inpress)

Munasinghe et al. Brazil(2009)

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200918/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

5.2 Water Footprint of Oranges
As described in section 2.4, the WF respectively the VWC of oranges is specified only in one source(Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2004a, b). It is reported as one single value without a subdivision into a green
and blue component what makes a discussion and interpretation of the values difficult. To put thesevalues in a broader context, the VWC given in m3/kg oranges has been converted in m3/ha with help of
data on the yields from Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b). Five additional sources were analysedin terms of water use for the agricultural production of oranges. The VWC of oranges and the yields
for the countries Brazil, China, Spain, USA, and Italy are listed in Table 3 and the values for theirrigation as well as the corresponding yields are stated in Table 4.
As showed in Table 3 and Figure 2, China has the VWC per kg oranges followed by Spain, Italy andBrazil. Oranges produced in the USA have the lowest VWC per kg oranges. When comparing the
VWC in m3/ha for the same countries, oranges produced in Brazil and Spain have the highest VWC
followed by Italy, China and the USA (refer to Table 4 and Figure 3). A low VWC per kg oranges isgenerally associated with higher yields. Another observation is that nearly the same amount of water isused per hectare to produce oranges in the USA and in China (approximately 5’000 m3/ha) but the
VWC m3/kg oranges is lower in the USA due to a higher yield. It suggests that the production in the
USA is more efficient.
Data on irrigation from Spain from Ribal et al. (in press)13 show that the water use might also differ
depending on the irrigation system applied (i.e. drip or gravity irrigation) and the producing system (IPand OF). For both production systems the total water used per hectare is lower under drip than undergravity irrigation. The irrigation water use per hectare under gravity irrigation in the OF is lower thanin the IP. According to Ribal et al. (in press) the content of organic matter is higher in the soils used
for the OF. Therefore, the water retention capacity is higher and water use is lower per ha than in the
IP. Due to lower yields in the OF, the water use per kg orange is higher than in the IP. This shows that
depending on the irrigation system and the soil type the water needed for irrigation can differ to someextent. Data on irrigation for Brazil based on Coltro et al. (2009) and on a personal communication14
show that the water use for irrigation per hectare differs between the sources. It is not possible todetermine the reasons for this difference directly from the sources. The difference might arise fromclimatic factors as well as other factors (e.g. soils, different producing regions).
All values from irrigation are lower than the VWC for the corresponding countries. This seems to be alogical consequence as in the VWC not only irrigation water but also rainwater is included. The dataon irrigation show that several factors might influence the actual water use at a specific site or region
to produce oranges. It is obvious that the VWC calculated as single value for a whole cannot represent
these differences sufficiently. The average VWC for example may vary significantly over time andspace, especially for countries with a great spatial variation of climate (e.g. China, USA). This fact is
not accounted in the VWC as the calculations of it are based on average climate (Chapagain & Orr,2009).

13
14

The values for the IP are the same as listed in Sanjuán et al. (2005).
Personal communication Dr. Dirceu Mattos Jr., Sylvio Moreira Citrus Research Center, Brazil, 30.09.2009.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200919/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Virtual Water Content (VWC)
3of Oranges in m /ha

Virtual Water Content (VWC)
3of Oranges in m /kg
Brazil

China

Spain

USA

Brazil

Italy

Spain

USA

Italy

7'000

VWC [m /ha]

0.5
3

0.4

3

VWC [m /kg]

China

8'000

0.6

0.3
0.2

6'000
5'000
4'000
3'000
2'000

0.1

1'000

0.0

0

Figure 2: Virtual water content of oranges in m3/kg
for selected countries. Source: Chapagain &Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b).

Figure 3: Virtual water content of oranges in m3/ha
for selected countries. Source: Chapagain &Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b). (Converted data, seesection 2.4).

Table 3: Yield and virtual water content (VWC) of oranges for selected
countries. Source: Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b). The data initalics have been converted (see section 2.4).
Country
Yield
VWC
VWC
[kg/ha][m3/kg][m3/ha]Brazil22'329

0.342

7'637

China

10'251

0.490

5'023

Spain

19'653

0.362

7'114

USA

33'326

0.149

4'966

Italy

16'006

0.359

5'746

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200920/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Table 4: Data on yield and irrigation water use in orange production from selected sources. Values initalics have been calculated.
SourceCountry Yield
Irrigation
Irrigation
Remarks[kg/ha][m3/kg][m3/ha]Coltro et al. (2005)

Brazil30'500

0.176

5'368

Data based on the weighted
average drip and gravity
irrigation.

Direceu
Mattos,personal
communication, 30.09.2009

Brazil21'954a

0.148

3'250

The irrigation value is based ona mean irrigation 325 mm/year
stated by D. Mattos.

Beccali et al. (2009)

Italy

25'000

0.168

4'200

Directconsumption
irrigation water.

30'000

0.200

6'000

Integrated production, gravity
irrigation

30'000

0.167

5'000

Integrated
irrigation

production,

24'000

0.229

5'500

Organic
irrigation

farming,

24'000

0.208

5'000

Organic farming, drip irrigation

Ribal et al. (in press)

a

Spain

of

drip
gravity

The mean yield was calculated with FAO data from 2003-2007 (see Appendix 9.3).

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200921/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

6 Strawberries
6.1 Carbon Footprint of Strawberries
Publications on the GHG emissions for strawberry production were found for Japan, Spain and theUK. Detailed data on the emissions associated with the agricultural part of strawberry production for
Spain are reported in two publications (REWE Group, 2009; Williams et al., 2008), in one further
source the emissions are documented for the whole life cycle but not analysed in detail with respect tothe agricultural part (The Co-operative Group, 2008). Four publications report the CF for the UK(Lillywhite, 2008; The Co-operative Group, 2008; University of Hertfordshire, 2005; Williams et al.,2008) and one for Japan (Yoshikawa et al., 2008).
The REWE Group (2009) investigated the whole life cycle of the strawberry production in Spain. The
total emissions amount to 0.88 kg CO2-eq./kg strawberry punnet including all production steps,
distribution, shopping, product usage and waste disposal. The whole production stage amounts toapproximately 41 % of the total emission; this figure includes farm activity emissions as well as
emissions from the polyethylene package production and transport, the energy use in the packhouseand the transport from the farm to the packhouse. For the relevant emissions from the agricultural
production, data are documented for the raw material production (cultivation and transport ofseedlings), energy use on the farm, fertilisers (subdivided into N-, P- and K-fertilisers), pesticides(subdivided into insecticides, fungicides and herbicides), the polytunnel and plastic mulch production
and the polyethylene waste transport and disposal. The main drivers for the GHG emission in the
agricultural production are the polytunnel and plastic mulch production (46 %) as well as pesticides
and polyethylene waste transport and disposal (both 23 %) and fertilisers (6 %). The N-fertilisers
contribute 66 % to the total fertiliser emissions, the P- and K-fertilisers 17 resp. 18 %. As for thepesticides, the 86 % of the emissions are fungicides, 12 % from herbicides and 2 % from insecticides.
In the production stage one uncertainty results from the variability of the diesel use on the farm that isdepending on the agricultural production method and the extraction of well water for irrigation.
Williams et al. (2008) performed a comparative LCA study of strawberry production in the UK and in
Spain. The GHG emissions for the agricultural phase of the production were higher in the UK than in
Spain (0.85 kg resp. 0.35 CO2-eq./kg). According to Williams et al. (2008) it was difficult to obtain
actual data on pesticide use for Spain. Therefore, the pesticides were assumed to be as the UK average.
Furthermore, it was assumed that methyl bromide is no longer applied as a soil fumigant in the
Spanish production (refer to section 4.22.2). If it is still applied the values for the GHG emission
would be about 10% higher than the reported values. Both facts (i.e. uncertainties from the use ofpesticides and methyl bromide) have to be taken into account when using the data for further analysis.
Lillywhite (2008) has calculated the environmental footprint of several crops produced in the UK.
Data was based on official survey data and standard texts on farm management. The boundary is thefarm gate but includes energy required to store, dry and cool the crops. The production of strawberries
amounts to 1.2 kg CO2-eq./kg strawberries. The general analysis of the results for several crops showsthat CO2 is emitted at almost every farming stage but that CO2 emissions from nitrogen fertilisers andfrom glasshouse and polytunnel production are the two dominating factors. The N2O emissions are
dominantly associated with the application of nitrogen fertilisers, tillage of agricultural land andemissions from manure. Again, this statement refers to all crops that were analysed in the study andnot only for strawberry production.
Another detailed analysis of the strawberry production in the UK was performed by the University of
Hertfordshire (2005). 14 different production systems and 6 additional sub-systems where identified.
The differences in the systems are among others the use of soil fumigation, protection with
polytunnels, organic production and whether soil or other media are used to grow the strawberries. Avery detailed analysis of the different systems including the GHG emissions was performed, but theresults that are reported are difficult to reconstruct (e.g. the values are not documented for all scenarios
Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200922/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

and it is not clear enough for which systems respectively subsystems the emissions have been
calculated). That is why only selected results on the GHG emissions are stated in the present report.
The emissions vary between the analysed production systems. The GHG emissions per kg strawberries
were lower within coir (coconut husk) grown crops than in some of the soil grown systems as a resultof higher yields in coir systems, but the coir systems had the highest GHG emissions per hectare. Coirtends to buffer nitrogen preventing its availability to the plant. Therefore, more nitrate fertilisers haveto be applied in coir systems.
The Co-operative group (2008) calculated the GHG emissions for the whole life cycle of strawberry
production in the UK (2 varieties) and in Spain (1 variety) with a draft version of PAS2050. In thecase of strawberries from the UK the emissions associated with the cultivation of “Ava” strawberries
where the growth media were peat bags are reported as 64 % of the total emissions. The main driver
for the emissions was the use of the peat bags as a growth medium. Data from the UK on “Elsanta”
strawberries that were grown in the soil showed that the GHG emissions from cultivation were only
46 % of the total emissions. The emissions of the latter were primarily driven by the use ofagrochemicals and not by the growth medium. The emissions from the cultivation of the Spanish
strawberries only amounted to 31 % of the total emissions i.e. the CF for the agricultural part ofstrawberry production is lower in Spain than in the UK.
Yoshikawa et al. (2008) documented the GHG emissions from the strawberry production ingreenhouses in Japan. The largest contribution to the emissions are from fuel, electricity and cleanwater (75.9 %) followed by fertilisers (6.3 %) and machines and equipment (5.3 %)15. They conclude
that the CO2 emissions from crude oil combustion in greenhouses are the main driver of the GHG
emissions for the investigated system.
Kramer et al. (1999) calculated the total emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4 from the purchase of
strawberries and the GHG emissions per household food consumption in the Netherlands (2.1 kg CO2eq. per household orange consumption). Emissions from other life cycle steps than only the
agricultural part of the production (e.g. distribution) are included in the total value. That is why thesevalues are not comparable to the other GHG emissions documented in the present report.
The summary of the values from the analysed sources shows that the CF for the different countries
analysed vary from 0.27 to 3.99 kg CO2-eq./kg strawberries (refer to Table 5 and Figure 4)16. There isa higher variation in the values for the strawberry production in the UK than in Spain. As described in
section 2.2 the producing system in Spain is more uniform (mainly in soil and protected) whereas in
the UK there is a greater variety of systems to produce strawberries. This might be one reason for thedifferences mentioned above. By trend the CF of strawberries produced in the UK seems to be higher
than for Spanish strawberries. But as only few data are available from literature it is difficult to further
analyse the geographical relevance of the CF. The CF of Japanese strawberries is much higher than forboth other countries. This might arise from the fact that this CF was calculated for greenhouseproduction.
It has to be considered that the calculations of the CF in the reported sources were performed withdifferent methodologies, the system boundaries were not defined in a similar way and different
producing systems were analysed (refer to Table 6). Additionally, some values have been recalculated(refer to Table 5). Therefore, a direct comparison and a deeper analysis of these values are very
difficult.

1516Personal communication Naoki Yoshikawa, 28.10.2009 and 29.10.2009.
The data from Kramer et al. (1999) have not been included as they are not comparable to the other values.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200923/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Carbon Footprint of Strawberries
based on Different Sources
kg CO2-eq./kg strawberries

5

The Co-operative (2009)
REWE Group (2009)4

Williams et al. (2008)3

Lilliwhite (2008)
University of Hertfordshire

2

Williams et al. (2008)
The Co-operative (2009). Peat bag.

1

The Co-operative (2009). Soil.
Yoshikawa et al. (2009)

0

Spain

UK

Japan

Figure 4: Carbon footprint of strawberries from Spain, the UK and Japan based on different sources.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200924/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Table 5: Total carbon footprint respectively production carbon footprint for strawberries from different
sources. Values in italics have been calculated. For detailed information on the system boundaries and themethodology used to calculate the CF refer to Table 6.
SourceProducing Product
Country

Carbon Footprint
Total
kg CO2-eq. per
strawberry punnet

Production
kg CO2eq./kg
strawberries

kg CO2-eq./kg
strawberries

in % of thetotal

The Co-operative(2009)

Spain

Strawberries

1.50

0.47

31a

REWE Group(2009)

Spain

Strawberries

0.88

0.27b

30

Williams et al.
(2008)

Spain

Strawberries

0.35c

38

0.91

Lillywhite (2008) UK

Strawberries

1.20d

University of
Hertfordshire(2005)
Williams et al.
(2008)

UK

Strawberries

0.44e

UK

Strawberries

The Co-operative(2009)

UK

Strawberries(Growth medium:
peat bag)

The Co-operative(2009)

UK

Yoshikawa et al.
(2009)

Japan

Strawberries(Growth medium:
soil)
Strawberries

0.85c

86

2.13

1.36a

64

1.18

0.54a

46

0.99

3.99f

a

The value includes only the cultivation stage.
The production CF includes the relevant emissions from the agricultural production the raw material production(cultivation and transport of seedlings), energy use on the farm, fertilisers (subdivided into N-, P- and Kfertilisers), pesticides (subdivided into insecticides, fungicides and herbicides), the polytunnel and plastic mulch
production and the polyethylene waste transport and disposal.
c
The value includes fertilisers, cultivations, containers, polytunnels etc. (personal communication Adrian
Williams, 29.10.2009)d
The value includes the energy required to store, dry and cool the strawberries.
e
Mean value calculated by the authors of the present report with data on the GHG emissions from 8 different
production systems with reference to first year outputs of strawberries all scenarios.
f
The production CF includes seeds, fertilisers, chemicals, other materials, fuel, electricity and clean watermachines as well as equipments buildings and horticultural facilities, irrigation, NO2 -fertiliser, NO2- and CH4fuel combustion (personal communication Naoki Yoshikawa, 28.10.2009).
b

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200925/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Table 6: Information on the system boundaries and the methodology used to calculate the CF for strawberries.
SourceProducingCountry
Spain

Product

Methodology

System boundary

Strawberries

PAS2050 (draft
version)Full life cycle analysis including cultivation and other life cycle stages for Sabrosa strawberries
produced in Spain and sold in Co-operative stores. More details on the system boundaries and possible
excluded in- or outputs are not published. Data refer to 1 kg strawberry punnet.

REWE Group (2009)

Spain

Strawberries

LCA

Williams et al. (2008)

Spain

Strawberries

LCA

Lillywhite (2008)

UK

Strawberries

Environmental
footprint

University of
Hertfordshire (2005)

UK

Strawberries

LCA (calculation
method not specified)Williams et al. (2008)

UK

Strawberries

LCA

Full life cycle analysis including raw material, production, distribution, consumer shopping, productusage and waste disposal strawberries produced in Spain and sold in Germany. More details on thesystem boundaries and possible excluded inputs or outputs are not published. Data refer to 1 kg
strawberry punnet.
Full life cycle analysis from the production in Spain to the delivery to the regional distribution centre in
the UK. Methyl bromide use is not included. It is not clear what production systems have been analysed
and included to the system. Further details on the system boundaries and possible excluded inputs or
outputs are not published.
Farm gate including energy required to store, dry and cool the strawberries. All transport and point ofsale packing is excluded. The analysis concentrated on CO2, N2O and CH4. Further details on thesystem boundaries and possible excluded in- or outputs are not published.
Life cycle analysis of the production in the UK. 14 production systems with six additional subsystems
were analysed. The system differed in the use of soil fumigation, protection with polytunnels, andorganic production and whether soil or media is used to grow the strawberries.
Full life cycle analysis from the production in the UK to the delivery to the regional distribution centre
in the UK. Methyl bromide use is not included. It is not clear what production systems have been
analysed and included to the system.

The Co-operative(2009)

UK

Strawberries (Growth
medium: peat bag)

PAS2050 (draft
version)

The Co-operative(2009)

UK

Strawberries (Growth
medium: soil)

PAS2050 (draft
version)Yoshikawa et al.
(2009)

Japan

Strawberries

Process-based hybrid
LCA

The Co-operative(2009)

Full life cycle analysis including cultivation and other life cycle stages for Ava strawberries produced in
Scotland and sold in Co-operative stores. The growth media are peat bags. More details on the systemboundaries and possible excluded in- or outputs are not published. Data refer to 1 kg punnet ofstrawberries.
Full life cycle analysis including cultivation and other life cycle stages for Elsanta strawberries producedin Scotland and sold in Co-operative stores. The growth medium is soil. More details on the systemboundaries and possible excluded in- or outputs are not published. Data refer to 1 kg punnet ofstrawberries.
Full life cycle analysis including agricultural production in the greenhouse, shipment, transportation,
retailing, cooking in the household, management of solid waste from agriculture, distribution andhousehold. Food processing, cooking and waste water treatment is not included. The GHG emissions are
based CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200926/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

6.2 Water Footprint of Strawberries
The WF respectively the VWC of strawberries is only specified in Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a;
Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2004b) and reported as a single value. The green and blue components are notdocumented in that source. A discussion and interpretation of this single value is difficult. That is why
the given VWC in m3/kg strawberries has been converted in m3/ha on the basis of yield data from
Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2004b). Furthermore, five sources wereanalysed with respect to the amount of water used for the irrigation in the strawberry production to beable to discuss some particularities in a more detailed manner. The VWC of strawberries and theyields for the countries China, Morocco, Poland, Japan, Spain and the UK are listed in Table 7 and thedata on irrigation in Table 8.
Poland has the highest VWC in m3/kg strawberries followed by China, the UK, Morocco and Spain.
The lowest VWC is reported for Japan (see also Figure 5). Similarly the VWC of oranges (chapter
5.2), higher yields are associated with a lower VWC per kg strawberries. The comparison of the VWC
per hectare for the same countries shows that strawberries produced in Morocco and Spain have thehighest VWC followed by Japan, China, Poland and the UK (see also Figure 6). The VWC per kg
strawberries in Poland is more than three times higher than for example in the UK although the VWC
per hectare is approximately in the same range for both countries (2’730 m3/ha for Poland, 2’308
m3/ha for the UK). This is probably mostly connected with the low yields in the Polish strawberry
production compared to the UK. The low yields in Poland have already been mentioned in chapter 2.2.
The VWC that is reported in Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b) is higher than the data reported
for irrigation. This is a comprehensible fact because as already stated in Chapter 3.1.2, the VWC
includes both blue and green water (i.e. rainwater and irrigation water).
Based on an estimation of the water use from sprinkler and drip irrigation17 the total water use for
irrigation in m3/kg strawberries in Poland is much lower than the reported VWC. Both sources thatspecify irrigation water use in Spain report approximately the same values (REWE Group, 2009;
Williams et al., 2008). This can be attributed to the fact that both studies were performed inapproximately the same production region with similar climatic conditions.
According to Williams et al. (2008) larger amounts of irrigation water are used in Spain compared to
the UK and therefore the eutrophication is higher in Spain as well if there is an excess in water use. In
the long term, this fact is associated with a higher energy use for water delivery as aquifers havebecome more and more polluted and the water has to be desalinated. In the VWC calculated by
Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b) the grey component (i.e. polluted water) is not quantified andthe described effect is therefore not accounted.
Data published by the University of Hertfordshire (2005) on the strawberry production in the UKshow that water use for irrigation varies with the production system. Furthermore, it is shown that
irrigation quantities may differ depending on the growth media used (e.g. coir has higher water use perha than peat). Another factor that influences water use is if the strawberries are grown under protectedor unprotected conditions. According to Chapagain & Orr (2009), the production under protected
systems is not covered by the VWC as it is calculated for open systems only.
17

Personal communication Waldemar Treder, 30.09.2009.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200927/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Virtual Water Content (VWC)
3of Strawberries in m /ha

Virtual Water Content (VWC)
3of Strawberries in m /kg
China

MoroccoPoland

Japan

Spain

China

UK

MoroccoPoland

Japan

Spain

UK

8'000

1.0

7'000

VWC [m /ha]

0.6

3

3

VWC [m /kg]

0.8

0.4

6'000
5'000
4'000
3'000
2'000

0.2

1'000
0

0.0

Figure 5: Virtual water content of strawberries
in m3/kg for selected countries. Source:
Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b).

Figure 6: Virtual water content of strawberries
in m3/ha for selected countries. Source:
Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b). Data
converted (see section 2.4).

Table 7: Yield and Virtual Water Content (VWC) of strawberries
for selected countries. Source: Chapagain & Hoekstra (2004a; 2004b).
Country
Yield
VWC
VWC
[kg/ha][m3/kg][m3/ha]
China

9'619

0.379

3'646

Morocco37'618

0.196

7'373

Poland

3'117

0.876

2'730

Japan

26'369

0.146

3'850

Spain

32'802

0.190

6'232

UK

10'079

0.229

2'308

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200928/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Table 8: Data on yield and irrigation water use in strawberry production from selected sources. Values initalics have been calculated by the authors of the present report.
SourceCountry
Yield
Irrigation
Irrigation Remarks[kg/ha][m3/kg][m3/ha]Lillywhite (2008)

UK

18'000

0.128

2'303

The data on the yield is based ona personal communication by
Robert Lillywhite, 26.10.2009.

Williams et al.
(2008)

UK

20'000

0.110

2'200

The data on the yield is based ona personal communication by
Adrian Williams, 29.10.2009.

University of
Hertfordshire (2005)

UK

19'318

0.119

2'299

Production system: protectedsoil grown crops. The yield was
calculated as a mean value forthe production system.

15'117

0.102

1'546

Production system: unprotectedsoil grown crops. The yield was
calculated as a mean value forthe production system.

20'450

0.080

1'637

Production system: protectedcontainer grown crops with peat.
The yield was calculated as amean value for the production
system.

7'100

0.208

1'475

Production system: unprotectedcontainer grown crops with peat.
The yield was calculated as amean value for the production
system.

22'900

0.096

2'200

Production system: protectedcontainer crops with coir. The
yield was calculated as a meanvalue for the production system.
The data on the yield is based ona personal communication by
Adrian Williams, 29.10.2009.

Williams et al.
(2008)

Spain

40'000

0.130

5'200

REWE (2009)

Spain

45'500

0.110

5'000

Treder Waldemar,
personal
communication,
30.09.2009

Poland

3'340

0.299

1'000

The irrigation value is based ona mean irrigation 100 mm/year
stated by Waldemar Treder. The
yield was calculated with FAO
data from 2003-2007.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200929/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

7 Conclusions
7.1 Approach and methodology
A total of 35 sources have been evaluated for oranges and 31 sources for strawberries with respect tothe carbon footprint. After a first evaluation 9 sources and 7 sources were retained for oranges andstrawberries, respectively. Since the system boundaries and the methodology differs between thestudies, a comparison of the references as well as deriving robust and detailed figures is difficult andshows the limits of the approach. It is often not possible to determine, whether the differences are dues
to different countries of origin, different production systems or different methodology.
The WF resp. the VWC of the selected fruits and for the selected countries is only reported in one
source and given as a single value with no subdivision into the green and blue component (Chapagain& Hoekstra, 2004a, b). Data on both components will be published in about one year from now on(see section 3.1.2), but it would also be possible to calculate them according to the method applied in(Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2008). However, this was out of scope of the current project. Values for thegrey VWC are not published, but polluted water is a more and more important factor in agriculture.
The average VWC may vary significantly over time and space, especially for countries with a great
spatial variation of climate (e.g. China, USA). This fact is not accounted in the VWC as thecalculations of it are based on average climate data. Furthermore, the VWC is calculated for open
systems.

7.2 Carbon Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries
Oranges
The literature review showed that only a few publications report data on the CF of oranges for the
agricultural production. Some data are documented for the whole production chain of orange juice.
The agricultural production stage in these publications is either not specified at all or just reported as a
general value. According to the evaluated sources, the key factors determining the GHG emissions in
the agricultural production are:•Country of origin: the reported values for Spain were higher than for Brazil and Italy (only one
source).

•

Yield

•

Fertiliser production and application (Beccali et al., 2009; Carbon Trust, 2008; Ribal et al., inpress; Sanjuán et al., 2005; Tropicana, 2009).

•

Machinery and irrigation system the diesel use seems to be the main driver for the GHG
emissions in the production (Sanjuán et al., 2005).

Moreover, the GHG emissions differ depending on the fertilisers and pesticides applied, theagricultural practices performed, the machinery and irrigation system used as well as on the
production system (i.e. IP and OF) (Ribal et al., in press; Sanjuán et al., 2005).

Strawberries
The review showed that only little data on the CF are available from published literature. Several
production techniques to grow strawberries are applied in the strawberry production (e.g. plastic

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200930/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

tunnels, greenhouses, different growth media). The key drivers for the GHG emissions seem to varywith the production system (e.g. growth media, protection, glasshouse, open field). The key input
factors of the GHG emissions in the agricultural production seem to be:•

Production and the waste transport and disposal of the polyethylene from the polytunnels(REWE Group, 2009).

•

Growth medium (The Co-operative Group, 2008; University of Hertfordshire, 2005).

•

Pesticides (REWE Group, 2009).

•

Production system in general e.g. glasshouse in Japan has a very high CF compared to theother CF.

The country of origin respectively the production region seems to be important as well.
Furthermore is seems difficult to generate reliable LCI data of the strawberry production for long time
periods as there is a lot of innovation (Williams et al., 2008).

7.3 Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries
The water footprint for oranges and strawberries varies widely between the investigated countries. The
variation seems to be higher per kg or product than per hectare cultivated. The main factors
determining the water footprint are:•Country of origin: logically the climate conditions (precipitation, saturation deficit) are key
factors determining the water footprint.

•

Yield: high yield usually goes along with a lower water footprint per kg of product.

•

Irrigation system: drip irrigation uses less water than gravity irrigation (Sanjuán et al., 2005)•

Production system: protected or open production•

Farming system: Ribal et al. (in press) reports lower water use per hectare in organic farming,
but higher per kg of product, as compared to conventional farming.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200931/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

8 References
Bayart, J.B., Bulle, C., Deschênes, L., Margni, M., Pfister, S., Vince, F. & Koehler, A., submitted. A Framework
for Assessing Off-Stream Freshwater Use in LCA. Submitted to International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment.
Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Iudicello, M. & Mistretta, M., 2009. Resource Consumption and Environmental
Impacts of the Agrofood Sector: Life Cycle Assessment of Italian Citrus-Based Products.
Environmental Management, 43: 707-724.
Bosc, J.P. & Mention, P., 2008. Production des fraises et de melons. Mission d'exploration au Maroc. Infos Ctifl,
242.
Carbon Trust, 2008. Working with Tesco. Product carbon footprintin in practice. Case Study CTS055. 8 p.
Chapagain, A.K. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2004a. Water Footprint of Nations. Volume 1: Main Report. UNESCO-IHE,
Delft, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 16, 80 p.
Chapagain, A.K. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2004b. Water Footprint of Nations. Volume 2: Appendices. UNESCO-IHE,
Delft, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 16, 240 p.
Chapagain, A.K. & Orr, S., 2009. An improved water footprint methodology linking global consumption to local
water resources: A case of Spanish tomatoes. Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 1219-1228.
Coltro, L., Mourad, A.L., Kletecke, R.M., Mendonça, T.A. & Germer, S.P.M., 2009. Assessing theenvironmental profile of orange production in Brazil. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment.
FAO, 2009. FAOSTAT. Accessed 19.08.2009. Available at http://www.faostat.fao.org.
Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 2009. Citrus Summary 2007-2008.
Frischknecht, R., Steiner, R. & Jungbluth, N., 2009. Methode der ökologischen Knappheit – Ökofaktoren 2006.
Methode für die Wirkungsabschätzung in Ökobilanzen. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU). Öbu –Netzwerk für nachhaltiges Wirtschaften, Bern, Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 0906, 188 p, Available at
http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01031/index.html?downloadshop=NHzLpZig7t,ln
p6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1acy4Zn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCDdIN7e2ym162dpYbUzd,Gpd6emK2Oz9aGodet
mqaN19XI2IdvoaCVZ,s-.pdf&lang=de.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J. & van Zelm, R., 2009. ReCiPe 2008: A
life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint
and the endpoint level. First edition Report I: Characterisation Available at http://www.lcia-recipe.net.
Hoekstra, A.Y. & Chapagain, A.K., 2008. Globalization of water: Sharing the planet's freshwater resources.
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 232 p.
Houjiu, W., 2001. The Situation and Outlook of Citrus Processing Industry in China. In: CHINA/FAO CITRUSSYMPOSIUM, , Beijing, People’s Republic of China.
Kramer, K.J., Moll, H.C., Nonhebel, S. & Wilting, H.C., 1999. Greenhouse gas emissions related to Dutch foodconsumption
Energy Policy, 27: 203-216.
Lillywhite, R., 2008. The environmental footprint: A method to determine the environmental impact ofagricultural production
University of Warwick, UK.
Liu, J. & Savenije, H.H.G., 2008. Foot consumption patterns and their effect on water requirement in China.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12: 881-898.
Makowska, M., Borowski, E. & Ziemba, A., 2005. The Gas Exchange and Yielding of Strawberry Plants
Cultivated in Black Soil and Sandy Soil with the Addition of Hydrogel. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum,
Horturum Cultus, 4(1): 153-161.
Milà i Canals, L., Chenoweth, J., Chapagain, A., Orr, S., Antón, A. & Clift, R., 2009. Assessing freshwater use
impacts in LCA: Part I-inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14: 28-42.
Munasinghe, M., Dasgupta, P., Southerton, D., A., B. & A., M., 2009. Consumers, Business and Climate
Change. A report prepared by the Sustainable Consumption Institute at the University of Manchester,UK, in collaboration with members of the CEO forum of companies., Manchester, UK, 59 p.
OECD, 2004. Key environmental indicators. Paris Available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/20/31558547.pdf.
PepsiCo UK & Ireland, 2008. Environmental Sustainability Report.
Pfister, S., Koehler, A. & Hellweg, S., 2009. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Freshwater Consumption
in LCA. Environmental Science & Technology, 43: 4098-4104.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200932/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

REWE Group, R.F.-W.-U., 2009. Fallstudie "Best Alliance". Früherdbeeren der REWE Group. Dokumentation.
Fallstudie im Rahmen des PCF (Product Carbon Footprint) Pilotprojekts Deutschland. Accessed
16.09.2009. Available at http://www.pcf-projekt.de/files/1232962839/pcf_rewe_erdbeeren.pdf.
Ribal, J., Sanjuán, N., Clemente, G. & Fenollosa, L., in press. Medición de la eco-eficiencia en procesos
productivos en el sector agrario. Caso de estudio sobe producción de cítricos.
Roudeillac, P., 2007. Vom Luxusgut der kapitalisten zum Exportschlager - Erdbeeranbau, Vermarktung undZüchtung in China als drittgrösster Erdbeerproduzent weltweit. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 49: 57-63.
SAI Platform, 2009. Discussion paper: accounting, impacting and mitigating Water Footprint at field level. .
Accessed 13.09.2009. Available at
http://www.saiplatform.org/site_files/uploads/documenten/SAIPlatformWFDiscussionPaper-03-0709.pdf.
Sandhu, K.S. & Minhas, K.S., 2007. Oranges and Citrus Juices. In: Hui, Y.H., Handbook of Fruits and Fruit
Processing, 1 ed, 309-358. Blackwell Publishing.
Sanjuán, N., Úbeda, L., Clemente, G., Mulet, A. & Girona, F., 2005. LCA of integrated orange production in the
Comunidad Valenciana (Spain). International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance andEcology, 4: 163-177.
Tesco, 2009. Tesco Greenerlivingeveryday: Our carbon label findings Accessed 30.092009. Available at
http://www.tesco.com/assets/greenerliving/content/documents/pdfs/carbon_label_findings.pdf.
The Co-operative Group, 2008. Sustainability Report 2008/09.
Tropicana, 2009. Understanding Our Carbon Footprint. Accessed 03.10.2009. Available at
http://www.tropicana.com/#/trop_environment/environment.swf.
UNEP, 2002. Case Studies on Alternatives to methyl Bromid: Volume 2. Technologies with low environmental
impact in countries with economies in transition.
University of Hertfordshire, 2005. Sustainability of UK Strawberry Crop. Final report to Defra on project
HH3606. Work concluded by the University of Hertfordshire, UK.
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2009. Gain Report. Number CH6056. 10 p.
Wallén, A., Brandt, N. & Wennersten, R., 2004. Does the Swedish consumer's choice of food influencegreenhouse gas emissions? Environmental Science & Policy, 7: 525-535.
WBCSD, 2007. The global water tool. World business council on sustainable development. Accessed
25.08.2009. Available at http://www.wbcsd.org.
Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M. & Altig, L., 2000. Environmental Assessment of Products. Volume 1: Methodology,
tools and case studies in product development. . 2nd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 543 p.
WFN, 2009. Water Footprint Network. Accessed 30.08.2009. Available at http://www.waterfootprint.org/.
Williams, A., Pell, E., Webb, J., Moorhouse, E. & Audsley, E., 2008. Strawberry and tomato production for the
UK compared between the UK and Spain. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on LCA
in the Agri-Food Sector – Towards a sustainable management of the Food chain, Nemecek, T. &Gaillard, G. (eds.). Zurich. Agroscope ART, 254-262.
Yoshikawa, N., Amano, K. & Shimada, K., 2008. Evaluation of Environmental Load on Fruits and Vegetables
Consumption and its Reduction Potential. Accessed 04.09.2009. Available at
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/rv/amano/pdf/2008EBJ-yoshikawanaoki.pdf.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200933/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9 Appendix
9.1 Report: Review on the State of the Art to Quantify Water Use
1. Introduction
A literature review on the state of the art to quantify the water use (i.e. water footprint) has been
performed. For that, some of the established LCA methods (Ecological Scarcity Method 2006, ReCiPe
2008, Impact 2002 +, Eco-indicator 99, EDIP 1996, EDIP 2003, and CML 2001) as well as recent
LCA methods and other approaches were considered. The focus was put on the methodology. In thepresent report the main findings of this literature review are summarised.

2. Methodology
The literature review has been performed using scientific papers, reports, books, posters, and websites.
Information on relevant definitions, LCI inputs and outputs, impact pathways, impact characterisation,weighing and normalisation, and impact categories for the different methods was gathered.

3. Definitions in the context of water use
In-stream water use

In situ utilisation of water such as a dam for hydroelectric power or navigational transport
on a river (Owens, 2002). Other terms: In-stream use (Pfister et al., 2009).

Off-stream water withdrawal

Water removal from a natural water body or groundwater aquifer such as pumping(Owens, 2002). Other terms: Off-stream use (Pfister et al., 2009).

Water release or return

Water release after off-stream use to surface waters (Owens, 2002).

Water use

Off-stream use where water is released or returned to the original river basin. Downstream
users (humans, ecosystem) are not deprived from water volume (Owens, 2002). Other
terms: nonevaporative water use (Milà i Canals et al., 2009). Other definitions: Any
withdrawal of freshwater for production or consumption processes (Frischknecht et al.,2009).

Water consumption

Off-stream use where water release or return does not occur (e.g. evaporation from areservoir, evaporation from irrigation, evaporation from thermal cooling, transfer out of
the natural river basin). Downstream users are deprived of some water (Owens, 2002).
Other terms: evaporative water use (Milà i Canals et al., 2009), consumptive use (Pfister
et al., 2009).

Water depletion

Water withdrawal from a water source that is not replenished or recharged at
approximately the same or greater rate than human withdrawal (Owens, 2002).

Degradative use

Quality change in water used and released back to the same watershed (Pfister et al.,2009).

Green water

Rainwater that is stored in the soil as soil moisture (Hoekstra, 2008). Other definition:
Water stored as soil moisture and available for evaporation (Milà i Canals et al., 2009).

Blue water

Surface and ground water (Hoekstra, 2008).

Gray water

Polluted water that associates with the production of all goods and services for theindividual or community (Hoekstra, 2008).

Water resource types

Flows (rainwater, river, lake), funds (aquifers), stocks (fossil water) (Milà i Canals et al.,2009).

Natural sources

Surface (lake, river), ground, brackish, sea, and rain water (Koehler, 2009).

Technical sources

Tap water, reclaimed water (Koehler, 2009).

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200934/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

4. Results
4.1. Approaches to assess water use outside LCA
The review resulted in the inclusion of four approaches to assess water use: water footprint, virtualwater content of a product (i.e. water footprint of a product), global water tool, and OECD key
environmental indicators.
Water footprint
To describe the water footprint approach the two sources Hoekstra (2008) and Hoekstra & Chapagain(2007) were summarised. The water footprint (WF) of an individual, community or business is definedas the total volume of freshwater that is used resp. polluted directly or indirectly to produce a product.
The total WF is composed of the following three components: the green WF (volume of water that
evaporated from the global green water resources), the blue WF (volume of freshwater that evaporated
from the global blue water resources), and the gray WF (volume of polluted water that associates withthe production of all goods and services for the individual or community). The water footprint for eachnation of the world has been calculated for the period 1997-2001 (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007).
Virtual water content of a productVirtual water (VW) is defined as the volume of water that is required to produce a product, i.e.
commodity, good or service measured at the place where the product was produced (Hoekstra &Chapagain, 2007). The VW content of a product corresponds to the water footprint of a product and isdefined as the volume of freshwater used to produce the product measured at the place where theproduct was produced (Hoekstra, 2008). It is composed of the following three components: the green
VW content (for agricultural products as the total rainwater evaporation from the field during thegrowing period of the crop including transpiration by the plants and other forms of evaporation), theblue VW content (for crop it corresponds to the sum of the evaporation of irrigation water from thefield and the evaporation of water from irrigation canals and artificial storage reservoirs), and the gray
VW content (volume of water that is required to dilute pollutants emitted to the natural water system
during its production process to such an extent that the quality of the ambient water remains beyond
agreed water quality standards). This concept is more or less applied in the paper of Chapagain & Orr(2009), where two different production systems (open system and covered system) for tomato
production in Spain are analysed applying water footprint methodology.
Global Water Tool
The Global Water Tool (WBCSD, 2007) is an Excel-based tool to calculate and map water use andassess risks relative to global operations and supply chains of a company or organisation. For the
calculation the water input resp. water withdrawal and the water output resp. water discharge offreshwater and non-freshwater sources are necessary.
OECD Key Environmental Indicators
In the OECD Key Environmental Indicators an indicator for the use of freshwater is defined to assess
the intensity of freshwater use that is calculated as abstractions divided by available resources (OECD,
2004).

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200935/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

4.2. Established LCA methods
Water use is not taken into account in the methods IMPACT2000 + (Jolliet et al., 2003), Eco-Indicator
99 (Goedkoop & Spriensma, 2001) and EDIP 2003 (Hauschild & Potting, 2004). According toKoehler (2008) freshwater resources are considered as nondepletable in the methods CML 2001,
IMPACT2000 +, and Eco-Indicator 99. That is why characterisation models for freshwater exhaustion
are lacking. Water use is included in the following three established LCA methods: Ecological
Scarcity Method 2006, ReCiPe 2008, EDIP 1997 (Wenzel et al., 2000). Table 1 (see section 4.4.)
provides an overview on the main findings on these three methods. Some additional information on
two of the methods is given below.
Ecological Scarcity Method 2006
Three types of eco-factors for freshwater use are defined in the Ecological Scarcity Method 2006
(country specific factor, average of OECD countries, six different scarcity situations). Weighing canbe done according to the scarcity situation. It is possible to deduce specific regional or local ecofactors (Frischknecht et al., 2009).
ReCiPe 2008
The method ReCiPe 2008 has limited validity for well-developed temperate regions (Goedkoop et al.,2009).
4.3. Further LCA methods
Three recent LCA methods to assess water use can be identified (“Milà i Canals method”, “Pfister
method”, “Bayart method”). According to Milà i Canals et al. (2009) the paper of Owens (2002)
provides useful definitions of different water inputs and outputs of freshwater use. The definitions areapplied to some extent in three recent methods. The main findings on these methods are listed in Table
1 (see section 4.4.). Some additional information on the methods is presented below.
“Milà i Canals method”
It is possible that local effects are underestimated with this method as non-evaporative use of water is
not considered (Milà i Canals et al., 2009). The method is applied in the study “Assessing Freshwater
Use Impacts in LCA Part II: Case study for broccoli production in the UK and Spain” (Milà i Canals
et al., in preparation).
“Pfister method”
The damage assessment in the paper was performed according to Eco-Indicator 99 method, but it isalso possible to integrate the “Pfister method” in similar methods such as LIME, IMPACT2000 +(Pfister et al., 2009). The method is applied in the study “Regionalised LCIA of vegetable and fruit
production: Quantifying the environmental impacts of freshwater use” (Pfister et al., 2008).
“Bayard method”
The “Bayard method” was analysed by using two different sources (a poster with information on(Bayart et al., submitted) where the methodology is briefly described and a presentation held byKoehler (2009). For the moment it is not clear what water inputs and outputs are used in the inventory
and how the impact characterisation is modelled.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200936/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

4.4. Overview on LCA methods where water use is taken into accountTable 9: Overview on LCA methods that take into account water use.
MethodInventory:
Inventory:
ImpactImpactNormalisation/ Impact categories
Input/Output Water use
pathways characterisation Weighing
considered
considered
Ecological Scarcity Input/Output
Method 2006

All types offreshwater

ReCiPe 2008

Input/Output
desirable

EDIP 1997-

Impact: Areas of protection

-

Yes

-

-

5 default water types. Others
can beintegrated.

Yes-

Midpoint category:
Water depletion

-

Input

All types ofrenewable
water

-

-

Yes

Resource consumption-„Milà i Canals“

Input/Output

3 different
inputs andoutputs

Yes

Yes

-

1. Freshwater Ecosystem Impact
2. Freshwater Depletion

1. Ecosystem quality
2. Natural Resources„Pfister“Input/Output

Blue virtualwater
consumption

Yes

Yes

Yes

Suggested midpoint categories:
1. Water deprivation (not clear)
2. Freshwater depletion

1. Human health
2. Ecosystem Quality
3. Resources„Bayart“Input/Output

2 different
inputs andoutputs
proposedYes

No information

No information Midpoint assessment categories:
1. Water depletion
2. Water deprivation for ecosystems
3. Water deprivation for human use(insufficiency scenario) or traditional /commonly accepted LCIA environmental
impacts (compensation scenario)

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200937/76

1. Abiotic environment(subcategories: biotic naturalenvironment, abiotic natural
resources, abiotic man-madeenvironment)
2. Biotic environment(subcategories: biodiversity,
biotic production)
3. Human life (subcategories:
human health, labour)

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

5. Remarks
1. The following information is not or only partially presented in this report, but listed in the file
Literature_Review_Water_Footprint.xls as it might be useful for future work:• In-depth information on the water footprint of a nation (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007).
• The paper of Chapagain & Orr (2009), where two different production systems (opensystem and covered system) for tomatoes in Spain are analysed applying water footprint
methodology.
• Information on life cycle inventories for various vegetables and fruits such as citrus fruits
and strawberries (Stoessel & Hellweg, 2008).
• A short description of databases respectively tools used in some of the mentioned methods(Aquastat, CROPWAT, CLIMWAT for CROPWAT, AQUACROP, WaterGAP 2).
2. An interesting source would have been the paper “Assessing water in LCA: state-of-the art” by
Sebastien Humbert, Ecointesys, where the methods to describe water use in LCA are reviewed andbriefly described.

6. Literature used for the review on water use
Bayart, J.B., Bulle, C., Deschênes, L., Margni, M., Pfister, S., Vince, F. & Koehler, A., submitted. A
Framework for Assessing Off-Stream Freshwater Use in LCA. Submitted to International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
Chapagain, A.K. & Orr, S., 2009. An improved water footprint methodology linking global
consumption to local water resources: A case of Spanish tomatoes. Journal of Environmental
Management, 90: 1219-1228.
Frischknecht, R., Steiner, R. & Jungbluth, N., 2009. Methode der ökologischen Knappheit –Ökofaktoren 2006. Methode für die Wirkungsabschätzung in Ökobilanzen. Bundesamt für
Umwelt (BAFU). Öbu – Netzwerk für nachhaltiges Wirtschaften, Bern, Umwelt-Wissen Nr.
0906, 188 p.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J. & van Zelm, R., 2009.
ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category
indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition Report I: Characterisation.
Goedkoop, M. & Spriensma, R., 2001. The Eco-indicator 99: A damage oriented method for life cycle
impact assessment. Methodology Report. PRé Consultants, Amersfort, The Netherlands, 144p.
Hauschild, M. & Potting, J., 2004. Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment - the EDIP
2003 methodology. Institute for Product Development, Technical University of Denmark, 150p.
Hoekstra, A.Y., 2008. The water footprint of food. In: Förare, J., Water for food, 49-60. The Swedish
Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas),
Stockholm, Sweden.
Hoekstra, A.Y. & Chapagain, A.K., 2007. Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as afunction of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management, 21: 35-48.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G. & Rosenbaum, R., 2003.
IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. International Journal ofLife Cycle Assessment, 8: 324-330.
Koehler, A., 2008. Water use in LCA: managing the planet's freshwater resources. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13: 451-455.
Koehler, A., 2009. Framework and methods for assessing water use in the product value chain.
Presentation UNEP/CSCP Workshop Wuppertal.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200938/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Milà i Canals, L., Chapagain, A., Chenoweth, J. & Orr, S., in preparation. Assessing Freshwater Use
Impacts in LCAPart II: Case study for broccoli production in the UK and Spain. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
Milà i Canals, L., Chenoweth, J., Chapagain, A., Orr, S., Antón, A. & Clift, R., 2009. Assessing
freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I-inventory modelling and characterisation factors for themain impact pathways. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14: 28-42.
OECD, 2004. Key environmental indicators. Paris.
Owens, J.W., 2002. Water Resources in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Considerations in Choosing
Category Indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5: 37-54.
Pfister, S., Koehler, A. & Hellweg, S., 2009. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Freshwater
Consumption in LCA. Environmental Science & Technology, 43: 4098-4104.
Pfister, S., Stoessel, F., Juraske, R., Koehler, A. & Hellweg, S., 2008. Regionalised LCIA of vegetableand fruit production: Quantifying the environmental impacts of freshwater use. In:
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector – Towards asustainable management of the Food chain, Nemecek, T. & Gaillard, G. (eds.). November 12–
14, 2008, Zurich. Agroscope ART, 16-21.
Stoessel, F. & Hellweg, S., 2008. LCI of vegetable and fruit production in different countries. In:
Book of Abstracts of the 6th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector –Towards a sustainable management of the Food chain, Nemecek, T. & Gaillard, G. (eds.).
November 12–14, 2008, Zurich. Agroscope ART.
WBCSD, 2007. The global water tool. World business council on sustainable development. Accessed
25.08.2009.
Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M. & Altig, L., 2000. Environmental Assessment of Products. Volume 1:
Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. . 2nd ed. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, London, 543 p.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200939/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9.2 Literature Review CF and WF: Details on Sources
9.2.1 Literature for Oranges Included in the Analysis
Key Evaluation of thesourceMethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

1

LCA
(ISO
14040)

ReportPepsiCo UK& Ireland

Environmental
Sustainability
ReportTropicana

Understanding Our
Carbon Footprint

Tesco

Our carbon label
findings

2

3

Tropicana orange juicecarbon footprint,
includes all juice
production stages(growing/juicing in % of
total given). Supplier
Citrosuco. Methodology
ISO 14040.
Tropicana orange juicecarbon footprint,
includes all juice
production stages.

LCA (not Fact
specified) SheetNo calculation data,
PAS2050 Factcarbon footprint broken (draft
Sheet
down into life-cycle
version)stages e.g. for the whole
production in % of total
given. Information on
methodology andcountry from: Carbon
Trust. 2008. Working
with Tesco. Productcarbon footprinting inpractice. Case Study
CTS055.

Journal / Book /Year
Publication /Publisher
Retrieved
2008
September 2009from
http://www.pepsico.
co.uk/download/11
3

Producing Product
Country

Objectives

BrazilCarbon footprint infor orange juice
production. Carbon
reduction.

Retrieved October 20092009 fromhttp://www.tropicana.com/#/trop_envir
onment/environment.swf.
Retrieved
September 2009.
http://www.tesco.com/assets/greenerlivi
ng/content/docume
nts/pdfs/carbon_lab
el_findings.pdf

BrazilCarbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

40/76

BrazilOrangejuice

Carbon footprint infor orange juices.

Orangejuice

Carbon footprint infor orange juices.

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key Evaluation of thesourceMethod4

As they refer to Tescoorange juice it isassumed thatmethodology isPAS2050 (draft
version).

5

Detailed information on
carbon footprint andirrigation water use.

MediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

Assumed: Report
PAS2050(draftversion)Munasinghe,M.,
Dasgupta, P.,
Southerton,D., A., B. &A., M.,

LCA

Sanjuán, N.,Úbeda, L.,
Clemente,
G., Mulet,
A., Girona,F.

Consumers,
Business andClimate Change. A
report prepared by
the Sustainable
Consumption
Institute at the
University ofManchester, UK, in
collaboration withmembers of the
CEO forum ofcompanies.,
Manchester, UK, 59
p.
LCA of integrated
orange production in
the Comunidad
Valenciana (Spain)

ArticleJournal / Book /Publication /PublisherYear

Producing Product
Country

Objectives

2009

Assumptio
n: Brazil

Carbon footprint infor orange juices.

International
2005
Journal of
Agricultural
Resources,
Governance andEcology, 4(2): 163177

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

41/76

Spain

Orange(Navelinaorange)1. Evaluation ofenvironmental impactof the IP of citrus
fruits.
2. Contribution to thedevelopment of LCA
methodology
application in Spanish
agriculture.

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key Evaluation of thesourceMethodMedium6

Detailed information on
carbon footprint andirrigation water use for
integrated production
and organic farming

LCA

ArticleRibal, J.,(in press) Sanjuán, N.,
Clemente, G.
& Fenollosa,
L., .

7

Host country Sweden.
LCA
Information on GHG
emissions for oranges
and juice available but
processing anddistribution to Sweden isincluded in the amount.
Oranges from Spain,
Morocco, Israel,calculated as they werefrom France. Other
countries not specified,calculated as if products
were from New Zealand.
Inputs and outputs of the LCA
agricultural production
stage are given. Postagricultural production
steps are included in
total GHG calculations .
Reference year 2005.

8

Author /SourceArticleWallén, A.
Brandt, N.,
Wennersten,R.

ArticleBeccali, M.,
Cellura, M.,
Iuidicello,M.,
Mistretta, M.

Title / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Publication /PublisherYear

Producing Product
Country

Objectives

Medición de la ecoin
eficiencia enpress
procesos
productivos en el
sector agrario. Casode estudio sobe
producción decítricos.
Does the Swedish
Environmental
2004
consumer's choice of Science & Policy 7:
food influence525-535
greenhouse gas
emissions?

Spain

Orange(Navelinaorange)Assessment of ecoefficiency of orange
production

Spain,
Morocco,Israel.
Other
countries?

OrangeInvestigation ofannual green houseemissions associatedwith food production
and consumption in
Sweden.

Resource
Consumption andEnvironmental
Impacts of theAgrofood Sector:
Life Cycle
Assessment of
Italian Citrus-Based
Products

Italy

Orange,lemon,
citrusEstimation ofenvironmental
impacts associatedwith life cycles ofagrofood chain (e.g.
primary energy
consumption, water
exploitation, global
warming)

Environmental
2009
Management 43(4):707-724

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200942/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key Evaluation of thesourceMethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

9

Not clear

ArticleKramer,K.J., Moll,
H.C.,
Nonhebel,S., Wilting,
H.C.

Greenhouse gas
emissions related toDutch foodconsumption

Waterfootprint

ReportHoekstra,A.Y. &
Chapagain,
A.K.

Water footprints ofnations. Volume 2:
Appendices10

Host country
Netherlands. GHG
emissions given perhousehold. It is unclear
how it is calculated andwhere data comes from.
Country not specified.
Virtual water content.
Data given in m3/t forthe period 1997-2001.

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
Energy Policy 27,
203-216Year

Producing Product
Country

Objectives

1999

Not clear

OrangeDiscussion ofgreenhouse gases thatare related to Dutchhouse foodconsumption.

Value of Water
Research Report
Series No. 16.
UNESCO-IHE,
Delft

2004

Brazil,China,
Spain,
USA

OrangeDetermination of thewater footprint of
nations

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200943/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9.2.2

Literature for Strawberries Included in the Analysis

Key Evaluation of thesourceMethod1

GHG emission for
strawberries in Japan.
Data given in kg for
consumption. Data foremissions for the
production received per
e-mail 28.10.09

LCA

2

Detailed information on LCA
GHG emissions, GWP
and water use. In table 5
the unit for GHG are
printed wrong. Raw data
is in kg CO2-eq./t
strawberries. In the text
0.7 instead of 0.85 isreported. Personalcommunicaton A.
Williams, 29.10.09)

MediumAuthor /SourceJournal / Book /Year
Publication /Publisher
Not clear Yoshikawa, Evaluation of
http://www.ritsumei 2009
N., Amano, Environmental Load .ac.jp/se/rv/amano/pK., Shimada, on Fruits anddf/2008EBJK.
Vegetables
yoshikawanaoki.pdf
Consumption and its
Reduction Potential

Producing Product
Country

Proceedi
ngs

Spain,
UnitedKingdom

Williams,A., Pell, E.,
Webb, J.,
Moorhouse,
E., Audsley,
E.

Title / Method /Concept Name

Strawberry andtomato production
for the UK
compared between
the UK and Spanin

Proceedings of the 2008
6th International
Conference on LCA
in the Agri-Food
Sector, Zürich
(254-262)

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

44/76

Japan

Objectives

Strawberry 1. Building inventory
data covering generalfood consumed inJapan
2. Evaluating
reduction potential ofsome measurescontains cost analysis
Strawberry Comparison of
tomato andstrawberry productionin the UK and Spain.

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key Evaluation of thesourceMethodMedium3

Detailed information on
GHG emissions, GWP
and water use

LCA

Report4

Carbon footprint forwhole life cycle
including transport andother steps.

PAS2050 Report

Author /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Year
Publication /Publisher
University of Sustainability of UK Work concluded by 2007
Hertfordshir Strawberry Crop.
the University ofeFinal report to Defra Hertfordshire, UK
on project HH3606

Producing Product
Country

The CooperativeGroup

Spain,
Scotland

Sustainability
Report 2008/09

http://www.co2008
operative.coop/upload/Sustainability/Re
port0809/download
s/The%20Cooperative%20Sustai
nability%20Report%202008-09.pdf

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

45/76

Spain,
UnitedKingdom

Objectives

Strawberry To apply current
state-of-the-art
environmental impact
and economic andsocio-economic
assessment techniques
to a range ofstrawberry production
scenarios to develop abetter understandingof the sustainability of
the UK crop.
Strawberry Carbon reduction.

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key Evaluation of thesourceMethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

5

Showing theEnvironenvironmental footprint mental
and CO2eq and water
footprint
use in kg/ha. Yield is not
given. See also pdf
Lillywhite_2007

Article(reviewed?)

Lillywhite,R.

The environmental
footprint: A method
to determine theenvironmental
impact ofagricultural
production

6

Very detailed study on
production.

REWE
Group,
RheinischeFriedrichWilhelmsUniversität

Fallstudie "BestAlliance".
Früherdbeeren der
REWE Group.
Dokumentation.
Fallstudie im
Rahmen des PCF(Product Carbon
Footprint)
Pilotprojekts
Deutschland.

PAS2050 Case
study

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
University of
Warwick, UKYear

Producing Product
Country

2008

UnitedKingdom

http://www.pcf2009
projekt.de/files/123
2962839/pcf_rewe_erdbeeren.pdf

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

46/76

Spain

Objectives

Strawberry 1. Identify and(protected) quantify the key
inputs/outputs
associated withhorticultural andagricultural
production anddetermine theirenvironmental
impact.
2. Constructenvironmental
footprints for selectedhorticultural andagricultural crops.
Strawberry Calculation of carbon
emissions ofstrawberry
production.

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key Evaluation of thesourceMethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

7

Not clear

ArticleKramer,K.J., Moll,
H.C.,
Nonhebel,S., Wilting,
H.C.

Greenhouse gas
emissions related toDutch foodconsumption

Waterfootprint

ReportHoekstra,A.Y. &
Chapagain,
A.K.

Water footprints ofnations. Volume 2:
Appendices8

Host country
Netherlands. GHG
emissionsgiven perhousehold. It is unclear
how it is calculated andwhere data comes from.
Country not specified.
Virtual water content.
Data given in m3/t andgiven for the period
1997-2001.

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
Energy Policy 27,
203-216Year

Producing Product
Country

1999

Not clear

Strawberry Discussion ofgreenhouse gases thatare related to Dutchhouse foodconsumption.

Value of Water
Research Report
Series No. 16.
UNESCO-IHE,
Delft

2004

China,
Morocco,PolandStrawberry Determination of thewater footprint of
nations

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

47/76

Objectives

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9.2.3

Literature for Oranges Excluded from the detailed Analysis

These literature sources have been reviewed but not selected for a detailed analysis in the report.
Key

Evaluation of the source

MethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
Proceedings of the 6thInternational
Conference on LCA in
the Agri-Food Sector,
Zürich (332-414)

Year

ProducingCountry

Product

1

No agricultural process isanalysed.

LCA

Proceedings

Aranda A.,
Scarpellini, S.,
Zabalza, I.,
Valero A.

An analysis of thepresent food's transportmodel based on a casestudy carried out in
Spain

2008

Spain

Orange2

Energy inputs in MJ for thewhole life cyle. Data basedon Carlsson-Kanyama &Faist (2000).

LCA

ArticleCarlssonKanyama, A.,
Ekstrom, M.P.,
Shanahan, H.

Food and life cycle
energy inputs:
consequences of dietand ways to increase
efficiency

Ecological Economics
44(2-3): 293-307.

2003

Southern
Europe,Overseas

Orange,fresh, orange
juice

3

No new data. Reference to
Schlich & Fleissner (2005).
They write that no detailed
overall impact of orange
juice in any form has beenfound.

LCA

Report4

Host country UK. Summary
on other studies. No newdata given.

Not clear

Working
paper

Foster C.,
Green, K.,
Bleda, M.,
Dewick, P.,
Evans, B.,
Flynn, A.,
Mylan, J.
Garnett, T.

Environmental Impactsof Food Production andConsumption: A reportto the Departement ofEnvironment, Food andRural Affairs

Manchester Business
School. Defra, London

2006

BrazilOrange(juice)Fruit and Vegetables &UK Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Exploring
the relationshipCentre forEnvironmental
Strategy, University ofSurrey2006

Not clear

OrangeCarbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

48/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

MethodMediumAuthor /Source5

No explicit data on
production. Mentions Tesco
carbon labelling.

Not clear

Unpublishedpaper

Hasit S.

6

Gives an overview on
different studies associatedfood production and Energy
use resp. GHG.

Not clear

Technical
Paper

International
Trade Center

7

No information on GHG
emissions and water use.

Not clear

ArticleKhan, S.,
Hanjra, M.A.

8

No information on GHG
emissions and water use.

Not clear

Paper

Khan, S.,
Hanjra, M.A.,
Mu, J.,

Title / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
The Carbon Footprint in Barcelona, 30th andAgricultural Trade. A
31st May 2008
Background Paper
prepared for theInternational Centre forTrade and Sustainable
Development (ICTSD)
and the session titled
Agriculture, Climate
Change and Sustainable
Development at The
Future of Agriculture.
Airfreigth Transport of UNCTAD/WTO,
Fresh Fruit andGeneva: ITC
Vegetables: A Review
on Environmental
Impacts and Policy
Options
Footprints of water and Food Policy 34 (2):energy inputs in food130-140
production - Global
perspectives

Year

ProducingCountry

Product

2008

Not clear

Orange2007

Not clear

Orange2009

Not clear

Water management andcrop production forfood security in China:
A review

2009

China

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

Agricultural Water
Management 96 (3):349-3649/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

MethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

9

Total GHG emissions for all
production stages (including
cultivation and processing)of orange juice production.

Not clear

PosterKoronoes, C.,
Rovas, D.,
Tzanis, N.

Environmental Impact
Assessment of Orange
Juice Production

10

GHG emissions ofagricultural crop productionin the Netherlands. Oranges
not analysed.

Not clear

ArticleKramer, K.J.,
Moll, H.C.,
Nonhebel, S.

Total greenhouse gas
emissions related to the
Dutch crop production
system11

Seems to analyse only thetransport by air and surface
and not the agriculturalprocesses. See presentationof Marriott in the literaturefolder.

Not clear

DissertationMarriott, C.

12

Methodology description.
No data analysed. Basis for
Coltro et al. (2009).

LCA

ArticleMourad, A. L.,
Coltro, L.,
Oliveira, P.,
Kletecke, R.
M., Baddini, J.

From Plough to Plate by
Plane: An investigation
into trends and drivers
in the airfreight
importation of fresh
fruit and vegetables into
the United Kingdom
from 1996 to 2004
A simple methodology
for elaborating the life
cycle inventory ofagricultural products

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

Journal / Book /Year
Publication /Publisher
Life Cycle Approaches 2006
for Conservation
Agriculture. CML
Report 171.
Department ofIndustrial Ecology &Department ofEnvironmental
Biology.
Agriculture,
1999
Ecosystems &Environment 72: 9-16

ProducingCountry

Product

GreeceOrangeMSc Dissertation,
University of Surrey,
Surrey.

?

OrangeBrazilOrange2004

International Journal of 2007
Life Cycle Assessment
12(6): 408-413

50/76

Not clear

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

MethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

13

No specific fruits analysed.

Not clear

ArticlePretty, J.N.,
Ball, A.S.,
Lang, T.,
Morison, J.I.L.

Farm costs and foodmiles: An assessment of
the full cost of the UK
weekly food basket

14

No data on oranges.

LCA

ArticleSim, S., Barry,
M., Clift, R.,
Cowell, S.J.

15

Results not published yet.

LCA

Presentatio Stoessel, F.,nPfister, S.
Mutel, C.,
Hellweg, S.

The Relative
Importance of Transport
in Determining an
Appropriate
Sustainability Strategy
for Food Sourcing. A
Case Study of Fresh
Produce Supply Chains
Assessing the impact ofvegetable and fruit
production for decisionmaking in the retailsector16

Refers to Carlsson-Kanyama Not LCA
et al. (2003) and Schlich &Fleissner (2005)

ReportWangler, Z.L.

Fresh Insights 2 - SubSaharan African
horticultural exports to
the UK and climatechange: a literature
review

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
Food Policy 30:1-19

Year

ProducingCountry

Product

2005

Not clear

Fruit

Brazil,Florida,others?

CitrusSub-Saharia

OrangeInternational Journal of 2007
Life Cycle Assessment
12(6): 422-431

15th LCA Case Studies 2009
Symposium. LCA for
decision support inbusiness andgovernment for
Sustainable
Consumption and
Production. 22-23
January 2009, Paris
France. (12-14)
International Institute2006
for Environment andDevelopment, London

51/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

17

MediumAuthor /SourceOnly transportation assessed. Not clear

ArticleWeber, C. &Food-Miles and theMatthews, H.S. Relative Climate
Impacts of Food
Choices in the UnitedStates18

Before farm, farm and after Not clear
farm sales are given in USD.
More information on
calculation would be needed.

ArticleNeves, M.F.,
Do Val, A.M.,
Marino, M.K.

19

Each production step is
LCA
Articleanalysed but data is notlisted in the paper. No
detailed analysis of impacts.
More detailed data could
maybe be found in adisseration of Fleissner fromthe year 2001 (Costs approx.
50 Euro).
Annual emmissions of CO2 Field Study Article
and N2O per m2 are given
for Satsuma mandarin.

20

MethodTitle / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Year
Publication /Publisher
Environmental Science 2008
& Technology 42:
3508-3513

ProducingCountry

Journal for the Fruit
Processing and Juice
Producing European
and Overseas Industry
11(12): 486-490

2001

BrazilOranges,
processedoranges

Schlich, E.H.
The Ecology of Scale:International Journal of 2005
& Fleissner, U. Assessment of Regional Life Cycle Assessment
Energy Turnover and10(3): 219-223
Comparison with
Global Food

BrazilOrange(juice)Okuda, H,
Noda, K.,
Sawamoto, T.,
Tsuruta, H.,
Hirabayashi,T., Yonemoto,J.Y, Yagi, K.

Japan

Satsumamandarin

The orange network in
BrazilEmission of N2O andCO2 and Uptake of
CH4 in Soil from a
Satsuma Mandarin
Orchard under
Mulching Cultivation inCentral Japan

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

Journal of the Japanese 2007
Society for
Horticultural Science
76 (4): 279-287

52/76

Product

USA

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

21

22

23

24

MethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Year
Publication /Publisher
Energy requirement and Energy Conversion and 2004
economic analysis ofManagement 45(11citrus production in12): 1821-1830.
TurkeyProducingCountry

Product

Data (fertilisers, diesel,
Not clearwater etc.) is given in energy
equivalents. No GHG
emission calculation
performed in the study.
Management practises are
specified. Reference year:
2000.
GHG emission for mandarin LCA
orange in Japan.

Article(reviewed)

Ozkan, B.,
Akcaoz, H.,
Karadeniz, F.

TurkeyOrange,lemon,
mandarin

Not clear

Yoshikawa, N., Evaluation of
Amano, K.,
Environmental Load on
Shimada, K.
Fruits and Vegetables
Consumption and its
Reduction Potential

2008

Japan

MandarinorangeOwn study (not peerLCA
reviewed). Estimate of used
fertilisers, pesticides,
machines, water. Data can bebought. They would revise
data in that case.
Information on virtual water Water
content of fruits in China.
footprint
Fruits are estimated withdata based on apples. Data
given in m3/kg.

Database

ESU-Services,
Jungbluth,
Niels

LCI database

2002

USA, Brazil

OrangeArticleLiu, J. &Savenije,
H.H.G.

Foot consumption
Hydrology and Earthpatterns and their effect System Sciences
on water requirement in 12:881-898
China

2008

China

Fruit (basedon apples)

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200953/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

25

Carbon footprint is not
LCA
calculated explicitly. LCI for
the orange production is
given but in the datatransport from farm toprocessing industry is
included. Reference year:
2002/2003. Used in thereport for the wateruse/irrigation.
Provides data on orange
Not clearproduction in USA from 4
different sources (yield,
diesel, gasoline, N, P, K,
pesticides, machinery,limestone). Sources from1980, 1996, 1997.

26

MethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Year
Publication /Publisher
Assessing theInternational Journal of 2009environmental profile of Life Cycle Assessment
orange production in(online publication)
BrazilArticleColtro, L.,
Mourad, A.L.,
Kletecke,
R.M.,
Mendonça,
T.A., Germer,
S.P.M.

ReportCarlssonEnergy Use in the Food
Kanyama, A. & sector: A Data Survey
Faist, M.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

SwedishEnvironmental
Protection Agency,
AFR Report 291,
Sweden

54/76

2000

ProducingCountry

Product

BrazilOrangeUSA, Florida Orange

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9.2.4

Literature for Strawberries Excluded from the detailed Analysis

These literature sources have been reviewed but not selected for a detailed analysis in the report.
Key

Evaluation of the source

MethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
Proceedings of the 6thInternational
Conference on LCA in
the Agri-Food Sector,
Zürich (332-414)

Year

ProducingCountry

Product

1

No agricultural process isanalysed.

LCA

Proceeding Aranda A.,s
Scarpellini, S.,
Zabalza, I.,
Valero A.

An analysis of thepresent food's transportmodel based on a casestudy carried out in
Spain

2008

Spain

Strawberry

2

Energy inputs in MJ for thewhole life cycle. Data basedon Carlsson-Kanyama &Faist (2000).

LCA

ArticleCarlssonKanyama, A.,
Ekstrom, M.P.,
Shanahan, H.

Food and life cycle
energy inputs:
consequences of dietand ways to increase
efficiency

Ecological Economics
44(2-3): 293-307.

2003

Strawberry

Garnett, T.

Fruit and Vegetables &UK Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Exploring
the relationshipCentre forEnvironmental
Strategy, University ofSurrey2006

Sweden,Southern
Europe,Middle East,
CentralEuropeNot clear

3

Host country UK. Summary
on other studies. No newdata given.

Not clear

Workingpaper

4Refers to University of
Hertfordshire, 2007.

Not clear

ReportGarnett, T.

Cooking up a storm Food, greenhouse gas
emissions and ourchanging climate. Food
Climate Research
Network

Centre forenvironmental
Strategy. University ofSurrey.

2008

Not clear

Strawberry

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

55/76

Strawberry

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

MethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
Food Policy 34 (2):130-140Year

ProducingCountry5

No information on GHG
emissions and water use.

Not clear

ArticleKhan, S.,
Hanjra, M.A.

Footprints of water andenergy inputs in foodproduction - Global
perspectives

2009

Not clear6

No information on GHG
emissions and water use.

Not clear

ArticleKhan, S.,
Hanjra, M.A.,
Mu, J.,

Water management andcrop production forfood security in China:
A review

Agricultural Water
Management 96 (3):349-36

2009

China

7

GHG emissions ofagricultural crop productionin the Netherlands.
Strawberries not analysed.

Not clear

ArticleKramer, K.J.,
Moll, H.C.,
Nonhebel, S.

Total greenhouse gas
emissions related to the
Dutch crop production
systemAgriculture,
Ecosystems &Environment 72: 9-16

1999

Not clear

8

Carbon footprint given for abottle of 250 ml of a
strawberry/banana smoothie
and for the whole life cycle.
Not specified forstrawberries. Several
changes carbon footprint
value.

Not clear

Web site

Innocence,
UnitedKingdom.

Carbon Footprint for
strawberry and bananasmoothies

Information retrieved
2008
from
http://www.innocentdri
nks.co.uk/us/ethics/res
ource_efficient/our_car
bon_footprint/

Not clear

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

56/76

Product

Strawberryand banana

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

MethodMediumAuthor /Source9

Seems to analyse only thetransport by air and surface
and not the agriculturalprocesses. See presentationof Marriott in the literaturefolder.

Not clear

DissertationMarriott, C.

10

No specific fruits analysed.

Not clear

ArticlePretty, J.N.,
Ball, A.S.,
Lang, T.,
Morison, J.I.L.

11

Gives an overview on
production regions, not for
further analyse, German.

Not LCA

ArticleRoudeillac, P.

12No data on strawberries.

LCA

ArticleSim, S., Barry,
M., Clift, R.,
Cowell, S.J.

Title / Method /Concept Name

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
From Plough to Plate by MSc Dissertation,
Plane: An investigation University of Surrey,
into trends and drivers
Surrey.
in the airfreight
importation of fresh
fruit and vegetables into
the United Kingdom
from 1996 to 2004
Farm costs and food
Food Policy 30:1-19
miles: An assessment of
the full cost of the UK
weekly food basket

Year

ProducingCountry

Product

2004

Not clear

Strawberry

2005

Not clear

Fruit

Vom Luxusgut der
Kapitalisten zum
Exportschlager –Erdbeeranbau,
Vermarktung undZüchtung in China als
drittgrösster
Erdbeerproduzent
weltweit
The Relative
Importance of Transport
in Determining an
Appropriate
Sustainability Strategy
for Food Sourcing. A
Case Study of Fresh
Produce Supply Chains

2007

China

Strawberry

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

Erwerbs-Obstbau 49:
57-63

International Journal of 2007
Life Cycle Assessment
12(6): 422-431

57/76

Not clear

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

MethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

13

No data on GHG and wateruse.

Not clear

ArticleStevens, M.D.,
Black, B.L.,
Lea-Cox, J.D.,
Hapeman, C.J.

Sustainability of ColdClimate Strawberry
Production Systems

14

Results not published yet.

LCA

Presentatio Stoessel, F.,nPfister, S.
Mutel, C.,
Hellweg, S.

Assessing the impact ofvegetable and fruit
production for decisionmaking in the retailsector

15

Gives information on yieldand production techniques
and not on GHG emissions.

Not clear

Report16

Seem to be the same data asin University of
Hertfordshire, 2007.

Not clear

Proceeding Warner, D.J.,s
Tzilivakis, J.,
Hipps, N.,
Davies, M.,
Osborne, N.,
and Lewis,
K.A.

Case Studies on
Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide – Volume 2.
Technologies with low
environmental impact incountries witheconomies in transition
Environmental impact
Proceedings of theassessment of the UK
International Fertiliser
strawberry cropSociety and Dahlia
Greidinger
Symposium. Izmir,
Turkey, 7 – 10
December 2003, pages
396 - 398.

UNEP

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

Journal / Book /Publication /Publisher
Acta Hort. (ISHS)
708:69-72

Year

ProducingCountry

Product

2006

USA

Strawberry

Spain,
others?

Strawberries

PolandStrawberry

UnitedKingdom

Strawberry

15th LCA Case Studies 2009
Symposium. LCA for
decision support inbusiness andgovernment for
Sustainable
Consumption and
Production. 22-23
January 2009, Paris
France. (12-14)
2002

58/76

2003

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

17

MediumAuthor /SourceOnly transportation assessed. Not clear

ArticleWeber, C. &Food-Miles and theMatthews, H.S. Relative Climate
Impacts of Food
Choices in the UnitedStates18

No information on GHG and Not clear
water footprint.

ArticleZhao, M., Su,
J., Qiang, Y.
and Wang, Z.

Advances in Strawberry Acta Hort. (ISHS) 708: 2006
Breeding in China
557-558

China

Strawberry

19

Provides raw data on
Not clearstrawberry production in
Sweden, Switzerland andUSA (open groundproduction) and Sweden(greenhouse production from
4 different sources).
Estimate of used fertilisers,
LCA
pesticides, machines, water.
Data is rather old. Data canbe bought.

ReportCarlssonKanyama, A.,
Faist, M.

Energy Use in the Food
sector: a Data Survey

2000

USA,
Switzerland,
SwedenStrawberry(open
ground,greenhouse)

Database

ESU-Services,
Jungbluth,
Niels

LCI database

Not
clear

Switzerland

Strawberry

20

MethodTitle / Method /Concept Name

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

Journal / Book /Year
Publication /Publisher
Environmental Science 2008
& Technology 42:
3508-3513

SwedishEnvironmental
Protection Agency,
AFR Report 291,
Sweden59/76

ProducingCountry

Product

USA

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Key

Evaluation of the source

MethodMediumAuthor /SourceTitle / Method /Concept Name

21

Data on irrigation water use
for Spain and Italy, but noanalysis of GHG

LCA

Bachelor
thesisBeyer, J.

Regionale Bewertung
der Wassernutzung ineiner Oekobilanz am
Beispiel derErdbeerproduktion

22

Information on virtual watercontent for fruits in China.
Fruits are estimated withdata based on apples. Data
given in m3/kg.

Water
footprint

ArticleLiu, J. &Savenije,
H.H.G.

Foot consumption
Hydrology and Earthpatterns and their effect System Sciences
on water requirement in 12:881-898
China

23

Host country Sweden.
Information on GHG
emissions for berries ingeneral available but
processing and distribution
to Sweden is included in theamount.

LCA

ArticleWallén, A.
Does the Swedish
Brandt, N.,
consumer's choice ofWennersten, R. food influencegreenhouse gas
emissions?

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

Journal / Book /Year
Publication /Publisher
Bachelor thesis, Chair 2008of Ecological Systems
Design, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology
Zurich.
2008

Environmental Science 2004
& Policy 7: 525-535

60/76

ProducingCountry

Product

Not clear

Strawberry

China

Fruit (basedon apples)

Not clear

Berries (fresh& frozen),notstrawberriesFederal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9.2.5 Contacted Research Institutes and Researchers for Oranges
Country / Countries

Institution

Name

E-Mail / Telephone

OutputAll countries

Franziska Stoessel,
Scientific Assistant,Institute of Environmental
Engineering (IfU)

franziska.stoessel@ifu.baug.ethz.ch

She has sent some literature abstracts.

All countries

Swiss Federal
Institute ofTechnology
Zurich,Switzerland
ADEME, France

bilan-carbone@ademe.fr

There is no information in the carbon balance of ADEME.

All Countries

ESU-Services

General address for thesection of carbon balance
Nils Jungbluth

All countries

Water Footprint
Network0041 44 940 61 32 ; jungbluth@esuservices.ch
A.Y.Hoekstra@ctw.utwente.nl

Information on LCI database for strawberries. Data can bebought.
No distincion between green and blue water footprint in
the publication "Water footprints of nations" by Hoekstra& Chapagain (2004). The distinction between green andblue water will be available for strawberries
approximately in October 2010. For own calculations ofgreen and blue water he recommends to use the methodfrom the book: Hoekstra, A.Y. & Chapagain, A.K. 2008.
Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater
Resources. Wiley-Blackwell. 232 pp. (Appendix I). For
the data he recommends to use CROPWAT, CLIMWAT,
and yield data from FAO. He adds the information that irr
requirement = crop water requirement (output fromcropwat) minus effective precipitation AND actual irr
depends on irr req and whether irr takes place yes/no.

Arjen Y. Hoekstra,
Professor in
Multidisciplinary Water
Management, University ofTwente Scientific Director Water Footprint Network

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200961/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Country / Countries

Institution

Name

E-Mail / Telephone

OutputBrazilSylvio Moreira
Citrus ResearchCenter, Brazil

Dirceu Mattos Junior, Dr.

ddm@centrodecitricultura.br

Reference to LCA study Okuda et al. (2007) from Japanfor satsuma mandarin but he does not know of any
studies of GHG emission from citrus cultivation in Brazil.
The main growing area in Brazil is in São Paolo. Citrus
water demand is considered 900-1'200 mm/year.
Irrigation usually supplies 300-350 mm/year. The amountis greater during spring and summer. Average application
rate is 4 mm/day in North of São Paulo and South of
Minas Gerais, based on daily water consumption of 70150 L/plant/day. Application rates: 0.4-1 mm/hour(literature in Portuguese available e.g. Mattos Jr., D., De
Negri, J.D., Pio, R.M., Pompeu Jr. J. 2005. Citros.
Campinas: Instituto Agronômico e Fapesp. 929.
Estimations on caron stocks in citus groves: Contatct
person Mr. Mattos.

BrazilThe Carbon Trust,
London, UK

Andie Stephens, Senior
Customer and ProjectManager, Carbon Label
Company

Andie.Stephens@CarbonTrust.co.uk

He sent the report from the University of Manchester,
Sustainable Consumption Institute. "Consumer, businessand climate change". On page 28 there is a breakdown of
the Tesco Orange Juice. For more detailed information herecommends to contact Tesco as the own the data.

FloridaUniversity of
Florida, Institute ofFood andAgriculture

James Syvertsen, Professor,
Citrus Research and
Education Center,
Horticultural Sciences

jmsn@ufl.edu

Reference to PepsiCo Carbon Footprint and information
on how much Carbon is sequestered and how much
Oxygen is release to the air form an average citrus grove
per year.

Spain

Universitat
Politècnica deValència, Dpt.
Tecnologia
d'Aliments, Spain

Sanjuan Pellicer, Neus,
Researcher

nsanjuan@tal.upv.es

She has sent an unpublished paper on orange production
as well as Further request: The values for the greenhousegas emissions for both publications.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200962/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Contacts with experts without responseCountry / Countries Institution

Name

E-Mail / Telephone

All countries

Yves Loerincik

yves.loerincik@ecointesys.ch

General address

faleconosco@centrodecitricultura.
brCommunication center

cct@iac.sp.gov.br

General institute address

frutas@iac.sp.gov.br

Leda Coltro

Undeliverable. Address invalid.
No other contacts found.
'crreport09@uk.tesco.com'

BrazilBrazilBrazilEcointesys,
Switzerland
Sylvio Moreira
Citrus ResearchCenter, Brazil
Sylvio Moreira
Citrus ResearchCenter, Brazil
Sylvio Moreira
Citrus ResearchCenter, Instituto
Agronômico, Centro
de Frutas, Brazil

BrazilBrazil

Tesco

China

China Agricultural
University, Beijing,
China
China Agricultural
University, Beijing,
China
China Agricultural
University, Beijing,
China
China Academy ofAgriculture Science(CAAS), China
China Academy ofAgriculture Science(CAAS), China
Chinese Academy ofAgricultural
Sciences
South China
Agricultural
University
South China
Agricultural
University
University of
Florida, Institute ofFood andAgriculture
University of
Florida, Institute ofFood andAgriculture
Instituto Valencianode Investigaciónes
Agrarias

China

China

China

China

China

China

China

FloridaFloridaSpain

Corporate Responsibility
Team, Tesco PLC, England.
General university address

College of Water
Conservancy and Civil
Engineering
College of Resources andEnvironmental Sciences
Hyu Zhaicaui@cau.edu.cn

dongquing@cau.edu.cn

deplnu@cau.edu.cn
Undeliverable. Address invalid.
No other contact given.
wangxyj@caas.net.cn

Shiwei Xu, Agricultural
Information Institutexushiwei@mail.cass.net.cn

General academy address

fao@xjau.edu.cn

General academy address

caie@scau.edu.cn

Contacts, Office ofCommunications

xcb@scau.edu.cn

Arnold Schumann, Associate schumaw@ufl.edu
Professor, Citrus Researchand Education Center, Soiland Water Science
Larry Parsons, Dr., Citrus
lparsons@ufl.edu
Research and Education
Center, Horticulture,
Irrigation
Citrus Network, general
redcitricos@ivia.es
address

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200963/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Country / Countries Institution

Name

E-Mail / Telephone

Spain

Office for Transfer ofResults of Investigation,
general adress
General adress

otri@ivia.es

Florentin Juste Perez,
Director

juste_flo@ivia.gva.es

General institute address

iamz@iamz.ciheam.org

Spain

Spain

Spain

Instituto Valencianode Investigaciónes
Agrarias
Instituto deAgroqímica yTechnología deAlimentos (IATA
Instituto Valencianode Investigaciónes
Agrarias
Mediterranean
Agronomic Instituteof Zaragoza, Spain

info@iata.csic.es

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200964/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9.2.6 Contacted Research Institutes and Researchers for Strawberries
Country / Countries Institution

Name

E-Mail / Telephone

OutputAll Countries

Agroscope
ChanginsWädenswil
Research Station
ACW, Switzerland

André Ançay, Scientific
Assistant, Section: Berries+41 27 345 35 50

All countries

ADEME, France

He would not recommend to substitute strawberries with another fruit as there is no fruit that is similar enough.
Contact addresses:
Poland: agnieszka.masny@insad.pl
China: ytaozhang@gmail.com
Morocco: no contacts available
There is no information in the carbon balance of ADEME.

All countries

Swiss Federal
Institute ofTechnology Zurich,
Switzerland

General address for thebilan-carbone@ademe.fr
section of carbon balanceFranziska Stoessel, Scientific franziska.stoessel@ifu.baug.ethz.ch She has sent some literature abstracts and the bachelor
Assistant, Institute ofthesis from Beyer, J. 2008. Regionale Bewertung derEnvironmental Engineering
Wassernutzung in einer Ökobilanz. Am Beispiel der(IfU)
Erdbeerproduktion in Südeuropa. Institute of Environmental
Engineering Ecological System Design. ETH Zürich.
Bachelorarbeit.

All countries

ESU-Services

Nils Jungbluth

0041 44 940 61 32 ;jungbluth@esu-services.ch

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

Information on LCI database for strawberries. Data can bebought.

65/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Country / Countries Institution

Name

All countries

Water Footprint
Network

Arjen Y. Hoekstra, Professor
in Multidisciplinary Water
Management, University ofTwente Scientific Director Water Footprint Network

China

Unknown

Dr. Yun-Tao Zhang, Contact ytaozhang@gmail.com
from Agroscope ChanginsWädenswil Research Station

MoroccoInstitut
Lachen Kenny, Professor,
Agronomique etDepartment: Horticulture,
Vétérinaire Hassan Section: Horticulture
II, Agadir, Morocco

kenny@iavcha.ac.ma

He does not know of any LCA literature on GHG and water.
Data on water consumption and GHG emissions ofstrawberry may exist but in Master or PhD Thesis andtechnical reports of the private companies.

PolandWarsaw Universityof Life Science

info@sggw.pl

They suggest to contact Edward Zurawicz
Contact: Edward.Zurawicz@insad.pl

General university addressfor enquiries

E-Mail / Telephone

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

OutputNo distinction between green and blue water footprint in the
publication "Water footprints of nations" by Hoekstra &Chapagain (2004). The distinction between green and blue
water will be available for strawberries approximately in
October 2010. For own calculations of green and blue water
he recommends to use the method from the book: Hoekstra,
A.Y. & Chapagain, A.K. 2008. Globalization of Water:
Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources. WileyBlackwell. 232 pp. (Appendix I). For the data herecommends to use CROPWAT, CLIMWAT, and yield datafrom FAO. He adds the information that irr requirement =crop water requirement (output from cropwat) minus
effective precipitation AND actual irr depends on irr req andwhether irr takes place yes/no.
Area: 130'000 ha, About 70-80% are greenhouse culture,
20-30% open field culture. He does not have information on
GHG emissions or quantities of water used.
Recommendation: qiujj@caas.net.cn or
qiujj@public3.bta.net.cn

66/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Country / Countries Institution

Name

E-Mail / Telephone

OutputWater usage in strawberry production. Glasshouseproduction rather marginal. Climatic conditions andtechnologies of production similar to East areas ofGermany. No Co2 application in glasshouse production.
Only a few percents of strawberry plantations are irrigatedby sprinklers or drippers. Approx. 50-150 mm of waterseason depending on weather conditions and irrigation type.
He does not know of any LCA research centres or studies
on Strawberries in Poland.
Yield = 18 t/h, values in CO2e/ha

PolandResearch Institute of Waldemar TrederPomology andFloriculture, Poland

wtreder@insad.pl

United Kingdom

University of
Warwick, United
Kingdom

Robert Lillywhite

Robert.Lillywhite@warwick.ac.uk

Adrian Williams

adrian.williams@cranfield.ac.uk

Spain: 40 t/ha, UK: weighted mean of several systems: 20
t/ha. The 0.7 vs. 0.85 t CO2e/t difference probably comesfrom editing the paper while still working on the results.
0.85 is the correct value. Pre-farm gate includes fertilisers,
cultivations, containers, poly tunnels etc and the output isstrawberries.

Yoshikawa, Naoki

ec081018@se.ritsumei.ac.jp

The difference of two values comes from their functional
unit: kg-production and kg-consumption.Because ofassumption of distribution loss (18%), farmers produce 1/(10.18)kg strawberry for 1kg consumption.So LC-GHG
emission per kg-consumption in agricultural production
stage is 3.99 / (1-0.18)=4.9 kg.

United Kingdom

Japan

Ritsumeikan
University, Japan

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200967/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Contacts with experts without responseCountry / Countries Institution

Name

E-Mail / Telephone

All countries

Ecointesys,
Switzerland
China Agricultural
University, Beijing,
China

Yves Loerincik

yves.loerincik@ecointesys.ch

General university address

caui@cau.edu.cn

China

China Agricultural
University, Beijing,
China

College of Water
Conservancy and Civil
Engineeringdongquing@cau.edu.cn

China

China Agricultural
University, Beijing,
China

College of Resources andEnvironmental Sciences

deplnu@cau.edu.cn

China

China Academy ofAgriculture Science(CAAS), China

Hyu Zhaiwangxyj@caas.net.cn

China

China Academy ofAgriculture Science(CAAS), China

Shiwei Xu, Agricultural
Information Institutexushiwei@mail.cass.net.cn

China

Chinese Academy of General academy address
Agricultural
Sciences
South China
General academy address
Agricultural
University

fao@xjau.edu.cn

ChinaSouth China
Agricultural
University

Contacts, Office ofCommunications

xcb@scau.edu.cn

MoroccoMinistry ofAgriculture andFishery, Morocco

General address

info@madrpm.gov.ma

MoroccoMoroccanMr. Mohamed Alamouri,
Association of
President of the association
Producers/Exportersof Strawberries"AMCEF", Morocco

alamouri@menara.ma

MoroccoFresouer Sarl,
MoroccoGeneral address of thecompany, Mr. Larbi Chaib,
Managerfresouersarl@menara.ma

MoroccoInstitut
Agronomique etVétérinaire Hassan
II, Agadir, Morocco
Institut
Agronomique etVétérinaire Hassan
II, Agadir, Morocco

Hassan Mounhim,
Department: Horticulture,
Section: Irrigation

mounhim@iavcha.ac.ma

Hassan Elattir, Professor,
Department: Horticulture,
Section: Horticulture &Irrigationelattir@gmail.com

Institut
Agronomique etVétérinaire Hassan
II, Agadir, Morocco

Aomar Amellouk,
Department: Horticulture,
Section: Fertilisers

amellouk@iavcha.ac.ma

China

China

MoroccoMoroccocaie@scau.edu.cn

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200968/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Country / Countries Institution

Name

E-Mail / Telephone

MoroccoLégumes et Fruits
au Maroc, Morocco

Author of the site is M.
Ahmed Skiredj, who has
worked in the Horticulture
Department at the Institut
Agronomique et Vétérinaire
Hassan II, Agadir, Morocco

http://www.legume-fruitmaroc.com/contact.php

MoroccoMediterranean
Agronomic Instituteof Zaragoza, Spain

General institute address

iamz@iamz.ciheam.org

fruit & legume. L'art General address
de produre lelegumes et les fruit
au Maroc
Research Institute of General research Institute
Pomology andaddress
Floriculture, Poland

http://www.legume-fruitmaroc.com/contact.php
isad@insad.pl

MoroccoPolandPolandResearch Institute of Barbara Michalczuk, Contact Barbara.Michalczuk@insad.pl
Pomology andfor general enquiries of theFloriculture, Poland research institute

PolandResearch Institute of E. Zurawicz, Research on
Pomology andStrawberries
Floriculture, Polande.zurawicz@insad.pl

PolandResearch Institute of Agnieszka Masny, Contact
Pomology andfrom Agroscope ChanginsFloriculture, Poland Wädenswil Research Station

agnieszka.masny@insad.pl

Spain, Scotland

The Co-operative
Group, United
Kingdom

Customer Relations

customer.relations@cooperative.coop

Spain, Scotland

The Co-operative
Group, United
Kingdom

Customer Relations

customer.relations@cooperative.coop

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200969/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9.3 Producing Countries: Detailed Data Oranges
Top 20 Countries 2003-2007. Source: FAO (2009).
Production (t)Country
BrazilUnited States of America
Mexico
India
Spain
China
Iran, Islamic Republic ofIndonesia
Italy
Egypt
Pakistan
TurkeySouth Africa
GreeceMoroccoArgentina
Viet Nam
Syrian Arab Republic
Australia
Algeria
All countries (114)

Area (ha)Mean(2003-2007)
17'960'415
9'213'497
4'068'267
3'166'820
2'838'393
2'613'207
2'214'536
2'183'642
2'147'934
1'865'357
1'551'093
1'391'554
1'320'299
856'442782'820774'843568'220500'874494'133
441'425
63'422'549% of allcountries
28.3
14.5
6.4
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.5
3.4
3.4
2.9
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
100

Rank

Country

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

BrazilIndia
China
MexicoUnited States of America
Spain
Iran, Islamic Republic ofPakistan
Italy
Egypt
Indonesia
Argentina
Viet Nam
Ghana
MoroccoSouth Africa
TurkeyGreeceCuba
Algeria
All countries (114)

Yield (kg/ha)
Mean(2003-2007)
818'415381'260
348'516327'213284'991
143'267
142'167
131'568
104'654
85'41967'67460'00056'70054'70049'16044'52740'89840'09535'46330'334
3'812'391% of allcountries
21.5
10.0
9.1
8.6
7.5
3.8
3.7
3.5
2.7
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.8
100

Rank

Country

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

TurkeyUnited States of America
Indonesia
South Africa
GuatemalaSyrian Arab Republic
IsraelOccupied Palestinian Terr.
LebanonBrazilEgypt
GreeceAustralia
Italy
Spain
Uruguay
Azerbaijan
Thailand
Chile
JordanAll countries (114)

Mean(2003-2007)
818'415348'516
143'267284'991
3'812'391% of allcountries
21.5
9.1
3.8
7.5
100

Rank

Mean
(2003-2007)
34'03032'36132'01930'10429'79129'35428'830
24'190
22'23821'95421'83221'35520'78920'531
19'96819'89918'878
17'57917'44017'302
16'635Rank

Mean(2003-2007)
21'954
7'455
19'96832'361
16'635

Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Brazil, China, Spain, United States of America 2003-2007. Source: FAO (2009).
Production (t)Country
BrazilChina
Spain
United States of America
All countries (114)

Area (ha)Mean(2003-2007)
17'960'415
2'613'207
2'838'393
9'213'497
63'422'549% of allcountries
28.3
4.1
4.5
14.5
100

Rank
1
6
5
2

Country
BrazilChina
Spain
United States of America
All countries (114)

Yield (kg/ha)

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

70/76

1
3
6
5

Country
BrazilChina
Spain
United States of America
All countries (114)

10
67
15
2

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Production and Area harvested Brazil, China, Spain, United States of America 1998-2007. Source: FAO (2009).
Oranges: Production per Country 1988-2007

Oranges: Production per Country 1988-2007
BrazilUnited States of America

China

Spain

4'000

25'000

Production [in 1000 t]

Production [in 1000 t]

3'500
20'000

15'000

10'000

5'000

3'000
2'500
2'000
1'500
1'000
500
2006

China

BrazilSpain

United States of America

400

100
50

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

71/76

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

0
1994

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

0

150

1993

200

200

1992

400

250

1991

600

300

1990

800

350

1989

1'000

1988

Area Harvested [in 1000 ha]

1'200

2007

2005

2007

2004

2006

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

Oranges: Area Harvested per Country 1988-2007

Oranges: Area Harvested per Country 1988-2007

Area Harvested [in 1000 ha]

1990

1988

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1989

0

0

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Yield for Brazil, China, Spain, United States of America 1998-2007. Source: FAO (2009).
Oranges: Yield per Country 1988-2007

Oranges: Yield per Country 1988-2007
United States of America

China

8'000

30'000

7'000

4'000

.

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

72/76

2006

2004

2002

2000

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

0
1992

1'000

0
1990

2'000

5'000

1998

3'000

10'0001996

15'000

5'000

1994

20'000

6'000

1992

25'0001990

Yield [in kg/ha]

35'000

1988

Spain

9'000

1988

Yield [in kg/ha]

Brazil40'000Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Florida and United States of America 2002/03-2006/07. Source: FASS (2009)
Production (t)Mean(02/03-06/07)
7'843'600
10'063'000

FloridaUSA

Area (ha)% of total

Mean(02/03-06/07)
215'384295'059

77.9
100.0

Yield (kg/ha)% of total
73.0
100.0

Mean
(02/03-06/07)
38'68035'515

Production, Bearing Area and Yield for Florida and United States of America 2002/03-2006/07. Source:
FASS (2009).
Oranges: Production Florida & USA
1987/88-2006/07
FloridaUnited States of America

Production [in 1000 t]

16'000
14'000
12'000
10'000
8'000
6'000
4'000
2'000

19
97
/9
8
19
99
/2
00
0
20
01
/0
2
20
03
/0
4
20
05
/0
6

19
95
/9
6

19
93
/9
4

19
91
/9
2

19
89
/9
0

19
87
/8
8

0

Oranges: Bearing Area Florida & USA
1987/88-2006/07
United States of America

350
300
250
200
150
100
50

20
05
/0
6

19
99
/2
00
0
20
01
/0
2
20
03
/0
4

19
97
/9
8

19
95
/9
6

19
93
/9
4

19
91
/9
2

19
89
/9
0

0

19
87
/8
8

Area Harvested [in 1000 ha]

Florida400

Oranges: Yield Florida & USA
1987/88-2006/07
FloridaUnited States of America

60'000

Yield [in kg/ha]

50'00040'00030'000
20'000
10'000

19
97
/9
8
19
99
/2
00
0
20
01
/0
2
20
03
/0
4
20
05
/0
6

19
95
/9
6

19
93
/9
4

19
91
/9
2

19
89
/9
0

19
87
/8
8

0

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 200973/76

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

9.4 Producing Countries: Detailed Data Strawberries
Top 20 Countries 2003-2007. Source: FAO (2009).
Production (t)Country
United States of America
Spain
Russian Federation
Korea, Republic ofJapan
TurkeyPolandMexicoGermany
Italy
MoroccoEgypt
United Kingdom
FranceBelgium
UkraineNetherlands
Iran, Islamic Republic of
BelarusSerbiaAll countries (76)Area (ha)Mean(2003-2007)
1’051’898
302’873
216’780203’691
196’200
193’289
173’957
171’671
138’610131’666
105’440
97’74865’86049’70541’50040’80038’84035’24334’42034’2933’705’603% of allcountries
28.4
8.2
5.9
5.5
5.3
5.2
4.7
4.6
3.7
3.6
2.8
2.6
1.8
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
100

Rank

Country

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

PolandRussian Federation
United States of America
Germany
TurkeySerbia and Montenegro
Spain
UkraineSerbiaKorea, Republic of
BelarusJapan
MexicoItaly
CanadaUnited Kingdom
Egypt
Iran, Islamic Republic ofFinlandFranceAll countries (76)

Yield (kg/ha)
Mean(2003-2007)
51’87333’92020’964
12’585
10’610
8’695
8’490
8’120
8’001
7’056
6’940
6’940
6’008
5’292
4’064
3’994
3’662
3’652
3’527
3’484
252’471% of allcountries
20.5
13.4
8.3
5.0
4.2
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
100

Rank

Country

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

United States of America
MoroccoSpain
Belgium
IsraelOccupied Palestinian Territ.
Costa Rica
Colombia
Korea, Republic of
MexicoJapan
Egypt
KuwaitChile
RéunionNew Zealand
Italy
Netherlands
Tunisia
GreeceAll countries (76)Mean
(2003-2007)
971
2718
51'873
252'471% of allcountries
0.4
1.1
20.5
100

Rank

Country

38
21
1

China
MoroccoPolandAll countries (76)Mean
(2003-2007)
50’15438’82435’93933’58032’00031’11430’30929’64128’92428’55128’273
26’66326’04425’341
25’00024’64724’323
23’971
23’75622’09514’668

Rank

Mean(2003-2007)
12'28438'824
3'340
14'668

Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

China, Morocco and Poland 2003-2007. Source: FAO (2009).
Production (t)Country
China
MoroccoPolandAll countries (76)Area (ha)Mean(2003-2007)
11'656105'440
173'957
3'705'603% of allcountries
0.3
2.8
4.7
100

Rank

Country

31
11
7

China
MoroccoPolandAll countries (76)

Yield (kg/ha)

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

74/76

33
2
70

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Production China, Morcco and Poland 1998-2007. Source: FAO (2009).

Strawberries: Production per Country 1988-2007

Strawberries: Production per Country 1988-2007

Morocco

China

140

Production [in 1000 t]

12
10
8
6
4
2

120
100
80
60
40
20

Strawberries: Production per Country 1988-2007
PolandProduction [in 1000 t]

300
250
200
150
100
50

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

0

Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

75/76

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1988

1990

0

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

0

1989

Production [in 1000 t]

14

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART

Area Harvested and Yield for China, Morcco and Poland 1998-2007. Source: FAO (2009).
Strawberries: Area Harvested per Country 1988-2007

PolandMorocco

3'500

70'000

3'000

60'000Area Harvested [in ha]

2'500
2'000
1'500
1'000
500

50'00040'00030'000
20'000
10'000

0

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

PolandMorocco16'00050'000

14'00045'00040'000

12'000

Yield [in kg/ha]

Yield [in kg/ha]

1991

Strawberries: Yield per Country 1988-2007

Strawberries: Yield per Country 1988-2007
China

1990

1988

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

0
1989

Area Harvested [in ha]

China

Strawberries: Area Harvested per Country 1988-2007

10'000
8'000
6'000
4'000

35'00030'00025'000
20'000
15'000Carbon and Water Footprint of Oranges and Strawberries. A Literature Review. November 2009

76/76

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

0
1988

5'000

0

1988

10'0002'000