Consumption-based accounting (CBA) of emissions (also called carbon footprints calculated using MRIO methods) accounts for emissions associated with imported and exported goods. CBA reports the total emissions associated with final demand in each country.

Emissions physically occurring in a country are its territorial emissions. This is sometimes called production-based accounting (PBA). This is the standard reporting of GHG emissions as reported by CDIAC, IEA, the JRC EDGAR database, UNFCCC, and others.

CBA can be calculated using a global multi-region input-output (MRIO) model which traces global supply chains. This dataset uses the Eora MRIO model to calculate the CBA emissions for each country.

Emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production are reattributed to the countries where final demand induced the production associated with those emissions. Emissions from aviation and marine bunker fuels are not included in the CBA inventory, as no method has yet been developed to allocate emissions from bunker fuels to countries other than where the fuel is bunkered.

In this dataset, territorial emissions are taken from the PRIMAP emissions database using the HISTCR scenario. Population and GDP data are from the World Bank. CBA results are from the Eora MRIO model (https://worldmrio.com) v199.82, years 1990-2018, by Daniel Moran, Keiichiro Kanemoto, and Arne Geschke.

This manuscript looks at carbon border adjustments (CBA) mechanisms and bans to imports of deforestation-free products (DFP) recently proposed by the EU, the US, and other countries. It aims to answer three questions: What is the exposure (computed in terms of share of exports potentially affected) and vulnerability of Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries (as measured by countries’ relative emissions’ intensity, risk of deforestation and exports’ concentration) to those regulations How could they be broadened along commodities and across countries and what would be the consequences What could be policy responses in LAC countries to adapt to the new rules Using data from the World Integrated Trade Solutions database (WITS), we find that the share of exposed exports in LAC countries’ is under 0.4% for the EU-CBA, it is under 17 percent for the EU-DFP proposal and under 6% for the US-DFP bill. Overall, CBA regulations would be milder than DFP ones, because of the productive profile of the region, more inclined to agricultural than to industrial production. For CBA, the EU rules would have a more severe impact than the US ones, and the other way around for DFP. If other countries with CBA plans adopt CBA, the impact would be small because the EU and the US are the destination of 45 percent and 8 percent of LAC exports, respectively. We find that broadening the scope of EU-CBA increases its impact to up to 14 percent of exports, whereas expansion of the EU-DFP has marginal consequences. When analyzing vulnerability, some LAC products have high(low)er emissions intensity than the European ones, which can be an (dis)advantage, since exporting those products would imply buying fewer EU-CBA allowances. Besides, some countries do produce goods with a high carbon content but have no competitors with lower emissions. The is also country diversity on vulnerability to deforestation risk across products and countries, as well as on exports’ concentration of each product, which is a measure of the likelihood of markets’ alternatives. While the private sector could accommodate its strategies to face trade-climate restrictions, there is a room for public action with respect to data provision.