A methodology for greenhouse

gas emission and carbon

sequestration assessments in
agriculture
Supplemental materials for info note series
analysing low emissions agricultural practices Working Paper
in USAID development projects
Working Paper No. 187
CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,
Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
Uwe Grewer, Louis Bockel, Gillian Galford,
Noel Gurwick, Julie Nash, Gillian Pirolli
Eva Wollenberg
A methodology for
greenhouse gas emission and
carbon sequestration
assessments in agriculture
Supplemental materials for info note series
analysing low emissions agricultural
practices in USAID development projects

Working Paper No. 187

CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,

Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)

Uwe Grewer
Louis Bockel
Gillian Galford
Noel Gurwick
Julie Nash
Gillian Pirolli
Eva Wollenberg

Published by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)

and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Correct citation:
Grewer U, Bockel L, Galford G, Gurwick N, Nash J, Pirolli G, Wollenberg E. 2016. A methodology
for greenhouse gas emission and carbon sequestration assessments in agriculture: Supplemental
materials for info note series analysing low emissions agricultural practices in USAID development
projects. CCAFS Working Paper no. 187. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on
Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Published by the International Center for
Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org

Titles in this Working Paper series aim to disseminate interim climate change, agriculture, and food
security research and practices and stimulate feedback from the scientific community.

The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) is a
strategic partnership of CGIAR and Future Earth, led by the International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT). The Program is carried out with funding by CGIAR Fund Donors, Australia
(ACIAR), Ireland (Irish Aid), Netherlands (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), New Zealand Ministry of
Foreign Affairs & Trade; Switzerland (SDC); Thailand; The UK Government (UK Aid); USA
(USAID); The European Union (EU); and with technical support from The International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD).

Contact:
CCAFS Coordinating Unit - Faculty of Science, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences,
University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 21, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark. Tel: +45 35331046;
Email: [email protected]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO

License.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT) or the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning
the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning
the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of
manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed
or recommended by CIAT or FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the views or policies of CIAT or FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-109497-6

© CIAT and FAO, 2016

CIAT and FAO encourage the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information
product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private
study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that
appropriate acknowledgement of CIAT and FAO as the source and copyright holders is given and that
FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be
purchased through [email protected].

ii
Contents

Contents .................................................................................................................................... iii

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... vi

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ vii

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

2. Sampling frame and data collection.................................................................................. 2

3. Components of the GHG estimation methodology ........................................................... 3

3.1 FAO EX-Ante Carbon balance Tool (EX-ACT)............................................................. 4

3.2 Main indicators and tools ................................................................................................ 5

3.3 Activity data .................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Leakage of GHG emissions ............................................................................................ 9

4. Detailed methods for GHG emission and carbon sequestration calculations ................. 10

4.1 Detailed methods for the estimation of CO2 emissions and carbon sequestration ........ 11

4.2 Detailed methods for the estimation of CH4 and N2O emissions .................................. 14

5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 17

6. References....................................................................................................................... 19

iii
Abstract

As many countries are increasing commitments to address climate change, national

governments are exploring how they could best reduce the impact of their greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. Agriculture is a major contributor to GHG emissions, especially in
developing countries, where this sector accounts for an average of 35% of all GHG emissions.
Yet many agricultural interventions can also help to reduce GHG impacts. This paper presents
the methodology to estimate impacts of agricultural interventions on GHG emissions and
carbon sequestration. This methodology is used in an analysis of several development projects
supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and
presented as a series of case studies. The methodology allows users to estimate (1) GHG
impacts at project scale, (2) GHG emissions by agricultural practice, and (3) GHG emissions
per unit of output (i.e., GHG emission intensity). The presented approach is a rapid
assessment technique that is well suited to provide an indication of the magnitude of GHG
impacts and to compare GHG impact strength of different field activities or cropping systems.
It is well adapted to a context of data scarcity, as is common in agricultural investment
planning where aggregate data on agricultural land use and management practices are
available but where field measurements of GHG and carbon stock changes are missing. This
approach is instrumental to inform agricultural investment, project, and policy planners about
challenges and opportunities associated with achieving and accounting for GHG emission
reductions in agricultural development projects.

Keywords
Climate change mitigation; agriculture; greenhouse gases; GHG emission intensity

iv
About the authors
Uwe Grewer1 is a consultant for climate smart agriculture in the Agricultural Development
Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Dr. Louis Bockel is a Policy Officer in the Agricultural Development Economics Division of
FAO.

Dr. Gillian L. Galford is a Research Assistant Professor at the Gund Institute for Ecological
Economics and the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the
University of Vermont.

Dr. Noel Gurwick is a Sustainable Landscapes and Climate Change Advisor in the Office of
Global Climate Change at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Dr. Julie Nash is a Research Leader for Low Emission Agriculture at CCAFS and a Research
Associate at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and the Rubenstein School of
Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont.

Gillian Pirolli is a data analyst for the Pathways for the Low Emission Development project.

Dr. Eva Wollenberg is the Flagship Leader for Low Emission Agriculture at CCAFS and a
Research Associate Professor at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and Rubenstein
School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont.

1
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected].

v
Acknowledgments

This work is the result of a collaboration between FAO and CCAFS, which is a strategic
partnership of CGIAR and Future Earth. This research was made possible by the support of
USAID.

vi
Acronyms

CCAFS CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security

CH4 Methane

CO2 Carbon dioxide

EX-ACT EX-Ante Carbon balance Tool (EX-ACT)

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GHG Greenhouse gas

GWP Global warming potential

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LED Low emission development

N2O Nitrous oxide

tCO2e/ha/yr Tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare per year

UDP Urea deep placement

USAID United States Agency for International Development

vii
1. Introduction

This paper presents the methodology to estimate impacts of agricultural interventions on

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon sequestration, used in an analysis of several
development projects supported by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and presented as a series of case studies. The case studies resulted from a
partnership between the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and
USAID. This partnership aimed to frame a strategic approach to low emission development
(LED) in the agriculture sector, outline LED practices likely to both increase yields and
reduce GHG impacts, and highlight considerations that organizations should address if they
are considering how to estimate impacts of agricultural development projects on GHG
impacts, or how to use such estimates.

This document is structured in three parts:

1. Sampling frame and data collection.

2. Description of the GHG estimation method, including the main results indicators, the
boundaries of the analysis, the baseline scenario, and, briefly, the GHG emission and
carbon sequestration calculations used.

3. Detailed explanations of specific calculations used to estimate GHG emissions and carbon
sequestration.

This rapid assessment technique is intended for contexts where aggregate data are available
on agricultural land use and management practices but where field measurements of GHG and
carbon stock changes are not available. It provides an indication of the magnitude of GHG
impacts and compares their strength among different field activities or cropping systems. The
proposed approach does not deliver plot, or season-specific, estimates of GHG emissions.

This method may guide future estimates of GHG impacts under data scarcity, as is
characteristic for environments where organizations engage in agricultural investment
planning. Actors interested in ex-post verification of changes in GHG emissions resulting
from interventions should collect field measurements needed to apply process-based models.

1
2. Sampling frame and data collection

We used a two-step process to select projects for analysis. During the pilot phase, the
sampling frame included USAID-financed agriculture projects in three countries: Bangladesh,
Colombia, and Mali. To identify these countries, the project team used convenience sampling
based on interest to ensure geographic diversity and the availability of USAID implementing
partners for interviews. During phase two, the sampling frame consisted of USAID-financed
agricultural projects in countries that are the focus of the Feed the Future initiative. In total,
we selected 30 projects likely to have a direct influence on GHG emissions and carbon
sequestration through critical case sampling. These projects covered a comprehensive set of
possible impact pathways on GHG emissions and carbon sequestration in agriculture,
forestry, and land use.

Because this method relies on information gathered from key informants, we designed a semi-
structured questionnaire to ensure comparable data collection across projects. Key informants
were USAID partner organizations that were implementing the agriculture projects. A
comprehensive set of GHG emission and carbon sequestration impacts in agriculture, forestry,
and land use has been considered, including GHG impact pathways identified in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (2006) and selected additional GHG sources (see sections 3 and 4 of this working
paper).

The analysis for each project followed these five steps:

Collect project documents. The research team established a database of available project
documentation, including project design documents (official documents that served as the
basis for project approval and funding), project monitoring reports (quarterly or annual
updates on activities and objectives), and other publicly available materials, including project
websites.

Capture key information from project documents. We reviewed available information and
captured key information in a database. This information clarified each project’s objectives as
well as the need for and content of project-specific data requests.

2
Request project-specific data. We identified data gaps central to the GHG analysis and
submitted written data requests to USAID’s implementing partners. By reviewing the
questions in advance, the implementing partners were able to gather and share relevant project
intervention data during the interviews.

Interview implementing organizations. Typically, a team of individuals representing the

implementing partners participated in the interview with FAO and CCAFS researchers. These
individuals provided data about changes in agricultural practices, annual yields, and
postharvest loss. Implementing partners collected yield and postharvest loss data through
interviews with beneficiary households, household surveys, postharvest loss reports, rough
estimates, and other various sources. The analysis team conducted face-to-face interviews in
Bangladesh, Colombia, Ethiopia, and Mali and remote interviews in other countries.

Interview follow-up. During the interview, the analysis team identified outstanding data
needs that are central for the comprehensive project GHG assessment. Implementing
organizations provided outstanding data during a brief follow-up period.

We describe below how our estimates of GHG impacts rely critically on information collected
during this five-step process. The results depend upon the ability of the implementing partners
to provide sound estimates of their activities, and the skill with which the research team
facilitates these interviews and uses information from the project documents. Even where this
process works very well, it yields coarse estimates, which are appropriate and useful for some
purposes but not others.

3. Components of the GHG estimation methodology

This section summarizes critical components of the methodology used to estimate GHG
emissions and carbon sequestration resulting from selected USAID agriculture projects. The
first section describes FAO’s GHG estimation tool, EX-Ante Carbon balance Tool (EX-
ACT), which we used to calculate GHG emissions and carbon sequestration. The second
section identifies the main results indicators used in the GHG assessment and specifies
various aspects of the activity data, including baseline scenario development and geographical
and temporal boundaries. Finally, we discuss GHG emission leakage—that is, the potential of

3
activities previously within the project area to move to some other location where their
influence on GHG emissions (and other social and economic factors) may persist.

3.1 FAO EX-Ante Carbon balance Tool (EX-ACT)

We estimated USAID project impacts on GHG emissions and carbon sequestration with the
FAO EX-ACT (Bernoux et al. 2010; Bockel et al. 2013; Grewer, Bockel, and Bernoux 2013).

FAO developed the EX-ACT appraisal system to estimate the impact of agriculture and
forestry development projects, programs, and policies on GHG emissions and carbon
sequestration. EX-ACT estimates carbon stock changes (emissions or sinks of carbon dioxide,
or CO2) as well as GHG emissions (CO2, N2O, CH4) per unit of land, expressed in equivalent
tonnes2 of CO2 per hectare and year (tCO2e/ha/yr).3 The combined impact from all GHG
emissions and carbon sequestration is referred to as the carbon balance, or GHG impact of a
project or management practice. EX-ACT enables project designers to estimate GHG impacts
and prioritize project components that achieve high mitigation benefits.

EX-ACT follows the accounting structure and logic outlined in IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2006) as well as chapter 8 of the Fourth Assessment
Report from Working Group III of the IPCC (Smith et al. 2007) in cases where specific
mitigation options were not covered in IPCC 2006 guidelines. We used estimates of
embodied GHG emissions for farm operations, producing and transporting inputs, and
establishing irrigation systems and other infrastructure from Lal (2004). GHG emissions from
electricity generation needed for production are based on data from the International Energy
Agency (USDE 2007).

The EX-ACT tool combines information on the extent of human activity (called activity data,
e.g., crop area and management practices) with coefficients quantifying the GHG emissions
per unit activity (called GHG emission factors or carbon stock change factors) (IPCC 2006).
The equation used to calculate GHG emissions is:

GHG emissions = (activity data) * (GHG emission factor).

2
1 tonne = 1 metric ton
3
GHG emissions of livestock production systems are estimated per livestock head and expressed in equivalent tonnes of CO2 per
head and year (tCO2e/head/yr).

4
The next chapter describes the GHG estimation method for different GHGs and carbon pools
in more detail. Although the IPCC designed its GHG accounting guidance for national level
estimates, it is also widely used for GHG accounting at the project level or in other contexts
where GHG field measurements are scarce.

The IPCC developed a tiered system of GHG impact estimates that reflects regional
specificity, spatial resolution, and complexity of the method. If used appropriately, higher tier
levels can yield more accurate GHG estimates with lower associated uncertainty.

The team used Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods for the GHG emission calculations in this study.
Tier 1 emission factors are readily available international factors, commonly differentiated by
rough agro-ecological zones. Tier 2 standards use higher temporal and spatial resolution and
more disaggregated activity data to correspond with coefficients for specific countries or
regions and specialized land use or livestock categories.

3.2 Main indicators and tools

We used FAO’s EX-ACT appraisal system to estimate GHG emission and carbon
sequestration values per area, while carrying out complementary calculations to derive GHG
impacts by practice and product. The three main indicators used are (1) total project GHG
emission impacts, (2) GHG emissions per unit of output (GHG emission intensity), and (3)
GHG emissions by agricultural practice. Below, we explain each of the three main indicators
identified in Table 1 along with the tools we used for the analysis.

Table 1. Main GHG indicators and tools

Total project GHG emission

impacts GHG emission intensity of GHG emission impacts by
Main (total emissions for overall agricultural production (emissions agricultural practice (emissions
indicator project) per unit of production) by intervention practice)

EX-ACT + EX-ACT +
Tool EX-ACT GHG emission intensity practice level
calculation calculation

3.2.1 Total project GHG emission impacts

The estimated GHG emission impact refers to increases or reductions in net GHG emissions
associated with project interventions as compared with no project interventions. A negative

5
value for the project total means the project will lead to reduced GHG emissions and/or
increased carbon storage as compared with the no-project scenario—indicating a favorable
outcome for the project with respect to climate change mitigation benefits.

3.2.2 GHG emission intensity of agricultural products

GHG emission intensity is the total GHG emissions per unit of output (e.g., GHG per hectare
or head of livestock) divided by the effective annual yield (annual yield minus postharvest
loss).4 Project implementation may raise GHG emissions and production simultaneously. The
increases in GHG emissions, however, may be (1) proportionately lower than the increase in
agricultural production or (2) lower than the increase in GHG emissions that would have
resulted from increasing agricultural production elsewhere. Increasing agricultural output
through land expansion to natural lands typically drives carbon losses.

Although EX-ACT can compute simple GHG emission intensities across a single value chain,
it does not provide GHG emission intensities for multiple production systems across a project.
To calculate GHG emission intensity for this effort, we extracted disaggregated GHG impacts
from EX-ACT submodules to create a GHG results dataset. The dataset includes general
information on the project, including country, climate zone, moisture regime, and soil type.
The dataset documents the type of crop and improved management practice applied, the area
of land or number of animals affected, and associated crop yields and postharvest loss
percentages. Next, the team combined the disaggregated GHG impacts from EX-ACT with
yield and postharvest loss data obtained from implementing partners during interviews.

3.2.3 GHG emission impacts by agricultural practice

Providing GHG impact estimates for each identified agricultural practice allows project
designers to understand GHG emission sources and consider them for future intervention
packages. To analyze impacts, the researchers clarified whether improved management
practices were applied in combination or in isolation, since this influences the generated GHG

4
GHG emission intensity can also be defined differently. For example, the amount of GHG emissions per quantity of calories or
protein produced are alternative approaches. For a discussion of different metrics for assessing GHG emissions and productivity,
see Garnett (2011).

6
impacts. In addition to assessing documented practice combinations, the hypothetical GHG
impact from adopting all observed new practices in isolation was calculated.

EX-ACT does not calculate practice-level GHG impacts. To calculate these impacts, the team
extracted disaggregated GHG impacts from EX-ACT submodules to create a central GHG
results dataset. This is similar to the process described in the preceding paragraph on GHG
emission intensity data.

Interpreting the emission impacts of adopting particular agricultural practices requires that
several factors be taken into account. First, increased soil carbon storage occurs only over a
limited period of time. EX-ACT assumes carbon stocks in soils will reach equilibrium
roughly 20 years after growers adopt a new practice (Bernoux et al. 2010). Second, avoided
emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are permanent, whereas increased soil
carbon can decompose and return to the atmosphere. Therefore, when interpreting the impacts
of shifting agricultural management, it is a good practice to consider whether main impacts
stem from changes in carbon stocks or changed GHG emissions.

3.3 Activity data

Activity data are mainly based on project monitoring reports or estimates by implementing
partners. Data referred predominantly to the situation prior to project start or estimated targets
at project completion, and the assumption that the project would meet those targets. And
although many projects had selected monitoring data that were readily available, the data
usually did not refer to the time of project completion and only covered a limited set of the
required activity data. Estimates of achievements at project completion are associated with
uncertainties. If implementing organizations would state at later stages of project
implementation that estimated project targets utilized for this analysis cannot be achieved, the
GHG estimates identified in this analysis would need to be updated accordingly.

Implementing partner organizations usually lacked any data describing the baseline scenario,
indicating the most likely development of project communities for the case that no project
would have taken place. In the following subsections, we describe how the baseline scenario
was developed and how geographical and temporal boundaries of the analysis were
established.

7
3.3.1 Baseline scenario

Determining the baseline scenario is a critical component of estimating GHG emissions and
determining the additionality of project activities. Additionality refers to the project’s capacity
to lead to improved GHG impacts than compared to the no-project scenario. Bockel et al.
(2013) suggest three methods for developing baseline scenarios: no-change scenario, past
trends extrapolation, and future trends modeling.

The no-change scenario assumes that no changes in land use or agricultural practices will
occur in the absence of the project (i.e., the status quo). It also assumes that farmers and
herders continue current production practices and there is no change in land use, which is
adequate for static production contexts. The no-change scenario is simple and transparent, as
the continuation of the status quo provides a clear reference point. For small-scale projects,
emission estimates typically use the no-change baseline (Bockel et al. 2013).

The past trends extrapolation method assumes that changes in land use and agricultural
practices will continue to evolve as they have in the past. This scenario approach extrapolates
trends using secondary data (ibid.). For instance, if a deforestation rate of 1% prevailed in the
past 10 years without strong annual fluctuations, the baseline scenario approach would
assume that this 1% deforestation rate would continue.

The future trends modeling method requires advanced modeling tools that use quantitative
input data to simulate possible changes in key drivers of land use change and agricultural
practices (e.g., international market prices, government policy, or climate) that generally
originate far from the farm field. For instance, increased demand for soybean production or
grazing land could lead to a higher profitability of deforestation actions and increase the
deforestation rate; whereas forestry protection laws and enforced sanctions for forest
conversion may decrease future deforestation rates.

Since determining baseline scenarios is linked to political considerations and different

technical approaches, stakeholders have not yet agreed on a consistent international approach.

Owing to limited data availability, large diversity in geographic contexts, and the advantage
of having a clear reference point, the team used the no-change baseline scenario for all project
analyses. Generating more complex baseline scenarios for small, project-specific locations
would entail a high level of uncertainty, driven by both global and local factors.

8
Although the approach chosen here uses the status quo as a clear and transparent reference
point, it has obvious limitations that need to be kept in mind when considering the resulting
estimates of additionality (i.e., the estimated change in GHG emissions that occurs
specifically as a result of the project). Once the project has ended, available data on
development pathways of non-targeted communities can be a good reference point for
revisiting the baseline scenario. If communities that were neither targeted by project
improvements nor exposed to spillover impacts from project actions can be identified as
having experienced a development path that differs strongly from the no-change scenario, the
baseline scenario should be reviewed.

3.3.2 Geographic boundaries of the project analysis

For the project analysis, the team estimated GHG impacts within the area targeted directly by
project actions. When applicable, the studies differentiate between the project’s target zone of
implementation and the non-target zones that exhibit clear spillover or externalities from the
project (Bockel et al. 2013).

3.3.3 Duration considered for the project analysis

For each project analyzed, the team estimated the average annual GHG impacts of actions
occurring during the 20-year time frame after project initiation. Therefore, GHG impacts are
comparable between projects of different duration and projects with a different temporal
dynamic in generating GHG impacts. Actual project duration varies, but USAID aims for
activities to persist beyond the life of any particular award. The analysis assumed that
agricultural interventions would continue in a sustained manner for at least 20 years, enabling
meaningful cross-project comparison of GHG impacts.

3.4 Leakage of GHG emissions

Emission leakage occurs when activities that produce GHG emissions cease or decline in a
target area but then appear or increase in another area, most often because the overall demand
driving the activity has not changed. For instance, if a project provides incentives for reducing
deforestation on a limited geographical scale while overall strong demand for timber products
continues to prevail, deforestation might only shift from the project area to another location.
Leakage dynamics are difficult to estimate as part of ex-ante analyses since they require clear
hypotheses of leakage dynamics as well as quantitative estimations of their impact strength.

9
Even after project completion, when monitoring data may be available, leakage often remains
difficult to detect. For example, in land use change, it is difficult to justify which share of
observed land use change happened as a result of leakage impacts. Moreover, because
demand for products often originates with international markets, leakage can occur across
large distances and between countries.

In interviews with project implementing partners, the strong presence of localized and direct
leakage impacts in the project area was assessed as improbable. The team thus assumed no
cases of leakage impacts in this analysis.

The lack of ability to monitor leakage dynamics limits our ability to develop sound macro-
economic scenarios and associated GHG emission pathways of the type that would be most
relevant to promoting LED. Especially when thinking of long-term impacts that extend
beyond the 20-year period of analysis, a variety of complex leakage and overspill impacts can
be expected. For example, if the adoption of improved agricultural management practices
increases the income generated per hectare, this may provide an incentive to clear natural
vegetation for agriculture, assuming sufficient labor and financial resources are available. An
integrated macro-economic assessment is necessary to adequately estimate leakage impacts in
the long term.

4. Detailed methods for GHG emission and carbon

sequestration calculations

This section contains more detailed explanations of the specific GHG emission and carbon
sequestration calculations that our team used. We first present the calculation method for CO2
emissions and carbon sequestration, followed by the calculation method for N2O and CH4
emissions.

Table 2 synthesizes GHG calculation methods by type of intervention.

10
Table 2. GHG calculation methods by intervention

Intervention/Sectoral Scope Tier GHG Method Section (chapter reference)

Avoided forest conversion, avoided 1 CO2 Above-ground biomass (4.1)

land degradation, reforestation Below ground biomass (4.1)
Litter and dead-wood (4.1)
Soil carbon stocks (4.1)

Perennial crop or agroforestry 1&2 CO2 Above-ground biomass (4.1)

expansion Below-ground biomass (4.1)
Litter and dead-wood (4.1)
Soil carbon stocks (4.1)

Soil management, water 1 CO2 Soil carbon stocks (4.1)

management, manure management

Crop residue burning 2 CH4, N2O Crop residue burning (4.2)

Fertilizer/pesticides 1 CO2, N2O Fertilizer (4.2)

Irrigated rice 1 CH4, N2O Irrigated rice (4.2)

Livestock 1&2 CH4, N2O Livestock (4.2)

Grassland 1 CO2 Soil carbon stocks (4.1)

4.1 Detailed methods for the estimation of CO2 emissions and

carbon sequestration
The subsequent section differentiates the impacts on CO2 emissions and carbon sequestration
by carbon pool. A carbon pool is any part of the earth system that serves as a reservoir for
carbon. It is usually characterized by the capacity to release or accumulate carbon; for
example, in soils and biomass (Karsenty, Blanco, and Dufour 2003). The GHG emission
estimates in this method include five carbon pools: above-ground biomass, below-ground
biomass, litter, dead wood, and soils:

1. Above-ground biomass consists of the living biomass material above the soil.

2. Below-ground biomass consists of all of the live roots below the soil surface.

3. Litter consists of all of the non-living biomass with a diameter less than 10 cm (or other
diameter set by a country) above the mineral or organic soil surface layers.

4. Dead wood consists of all non-living wood not contained in the litter, including woody
debris, dead roots up to 2 mm in diameter, and stumps greater than or equal to 10 cm in
diameter.

11
5. Soil organic carbon consists of decomposed organic matter in mineral and organic soil
layers (Schoene et al. 2007).

Emission calculations for above-ground biomass stocks mainly used default carbon stock
change values and growth rates for specific land uses from the IPCC Tier 1 method (IPCC
2006). We assumed carbon content to be 47% of above-ground biomass (ibid.).

In this study, the following interventions impacted above-ground biomass: perennial crop
expansion, agroforestry expansion, and land use change (deforestation, afforestation, and
forest management). For perennial and agroforestry systems, we estimated above-ground
biomass with dedicated calculations for each specific production system using a Tier 2
approach. Implementing organizations provided plant density and species estimates of
cultivated perennial crops as well as other conserved trees per hectare. Using tree biomass
estimates at tree maturity from the scientific literature, the team calculated the carbon stock
changes per hectare. Biomass estimates for other forms of land use correspond to IPCC Tier 1
factors (ibid.).

Table 3 summarizes estimation method information for above-ground biomass. Tables 4–12
summarize estimation method information for other carbon pools in a comparable manner.

Table 3. Estimation method for above-ground biomass

Method Default carbon stock change factors of above-ground biomass or growth rates of above-
basis ground biomass by type of land use (Tier 1, IPCC 2006); for agroforestry systems: tree
species-specific calculations of stock changes in above-ground biomass (Tier 2)

Intervention Land use change, perennial crops, agroforestry, deforestation, afforestation, forest
categories management

Calculation Default carbon stock change factors (Tier 1, ibid.) were used for most forestry and land
details use change impacts.
Carbon stock change factors in agroforestry and perennial cropping systems were
estimated using specific numbers of trees per hectare as reported by implementing
partners and estimates of biomass values by tree type from the scientific literature
(Tier 2).

12
Table 4. Estimation method for below-ground biomass

Method basis Default carbon stock change factors and growth rates of below-ground
biomass by type of land use (Tier 1, IPCC 2006)

Intervention categories Land use change, perennial crops, agroforestry, deforestation,

afforestation, forest management

Calculation details Below-ground biomass was estimated using a ratio (R) of below- to above-
ground biomass. R was determined by default values provided by IPCC
(ibid.); for example, R is 0.37 for tropical rainforest and 0.27 for tropical
mountain systems. The total above- plus below-ground biomass is used in
cases when it is not mandatory for calculations to have separate estimates
(ibid.).

Table 5. Estimation method for litter and dead wood

Method basis Default carbon stock change factors for litter and dead wood (Tier 1, IPCC 2006)

Intervention categories Deforestation, afforestation, forest management, land use change

Calculation details Litter and dead wood carbon pools are assumed not to change within unaltered
forestry areas. Forest management and forest conversion to other uses can lead
to changes in these carbon pools.
Refined data from the field are seldom available for smaller size carbon pools.
All assessments use Tier 1 default values (ibid.).

Table 6. Estimation method for soil carbon stock changes following land
use change

Method basis Default carbon stock change factors for soil organic carbon stocks in mineral
soils to a depth of 30 cm based on IPCC Tier 1 method (IPCC 2006).

Intervention categories Land use change, perennial crop expansion, agroforestry expansion,
deforestation, afforestation, forest management

Calculation details The IPCC Tier 1 values are based on references compiled from a wide range
of observations and data from long-term monitoring for soil organic carbon
stocks for mineral soils to a depth of 30 cm (ibid.). When soil organic carbon
changes occur due to changes in the type of land use, EX-ACT assumes that
a new equilibrium in carbon stocks is reached after a 20-year period.

13
Table 7. Estimation method for soil carbon sequestration on managed
agricultural land

Method basis Soil carbon sequestration rates on managed agricultural land were developed using
the default values from the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Smith et al.
2007).

Intervention Soil management, water management, manure management, perennial crops,

categories agroforestry

Calculation details Smith et al. (ibid.) provide estimations of annual soil carbon sequestration rates
instead of a soil carbon stock difference approach, and therefore do not require
information on initial absolute soil carbon stocks. This method assumes that soil
organic carbon stock changes during the transition to a new equilibrium occur
with a linear pattern. Although soil carbon changes in response to management
changes may often be best described by a nonlinear function, the linear
assumption provides a good approximation of the total impacts over a multi-year
period.

4.2 Detailed methods for the estimation of CH4 and N2O emissions
CH4 and N2O are naturally present in the atmosphere, but agriculture increases emissions of
these GHGs from the biosphere to the atmosphere. CH4 is released as part of the normal
digestive processes of livestock, particularly ruminants, as well as from managed manure
storage, crop residue burning, and flooded rice cultivation. N2O is released when bacteria
break down nitrogen fertilizers, organic matter, manure, and urine as well as when farmers
burn crop residues. Although this section focuses on CH4 and N2O emissions, it also includes
indirect CO2 emissions from production, transport, and storage of synthetic inputs, or from
direct burning of fossil fuels.

This section is structured by the processes that function as the source of the aforementioned
GHG emissions. Each subsection summarizes the method used for the respective GHG
calculations. For the GHG calculations, CH4 and N2O emissions were converted into CO2
equivalent (CO2e) emissions based on the global warming potential (GWP) of each gas over a
100-year period. All GHG impacts have been converted to CO2e, assuming a GWP of 34 for
CH4 and 298 for N2O (Myhre et al. 2013).

The GWP of long-lived GHGs is about the same whether we consider a shorter or longer time
horizon. On the other hand, the GWP of short-lived GHGs is much more powerful over short
time frames and declines over longer time horizons because less of the gas persists in the
atmosphere to trap heat. Time durations of 20 and 500 years are commonly used as alternative

14
reference points. The choice of time frame matters because although long-term climate
stabilization targets could be achieved without addressing short-lived gases for some time,
these gases can strongly influence peak GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and associated
global temperatures in the relatively near term. CH4, for example, has a 20-year GWP of 86
CO2e but a 100-year GWP of 34 CO2e. Clearly, the relative priority placed on reducing CH4
emissions in the near term would be lower if near-term consequences were irrelevant, which
they are not (Howarth 2014). Had we used 20-year GWP values, the benefits from
interventions that reduce CH4 emissions would have been greater compared with
interventions that reduce N2O emissions or increase carbon sequestration.

Table 8. Estimation method for irrigated rice

Greenhouse gases CH4, N2O

Method basis Estimates of GHG emissions associated with practice changes in irrigated
rice projects were developed using the default values from IPCC (2006).

Intervention categories Flooded rice

Calculation details Direct N2O emissions from field application of nitrogen from synthetic and
organic sources are estimated using the default emission factor from IPCC
(ibid.) for flooded conditions. CH4 emissions from flooded rice systems are
estimated using IPCC (ibid.) with project-specific information on rice crop
management practices.

Table 9. Estimation method for crop residue burning

Greenhouse gases CH4, N2O

Method basis Estimates of GHG emissions from crop residue biomass were estimated using
the IPCC Tier 2 method (IPCC 2006).

Intervention categories Reduced crop residue burning

Calculation details CH4 and N2O emissions from crop residue burning were estimated using IPCC
(ibid.). Instead of using global default values, crop residue biomass values
are estimated using project-specific information on crop yields (Tier 2). On
the basis of such project-specific biomass estimates, the respective
quantities of CH4 and N2O emissions are calculated using IPCC (ibid.).
This emission calculation only includes combustion impacts, as soil carbon
impacts due to residue retention are accounted for elsewhere (see above
section soil carbon sequestration on managed agricultural land).

15
Table 10. Estimation method for livestock

Greenhouse gases CH4, N2O

Method basis Estimates of GHG emissions from enteric fermentation, manure management,
and manure deposition were developed using IPCC Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods
(IPCC 2006) with project-specific data on livestock weight. Mitigation benefits
of improved feeding and breeding were used from Smith et al. (2007) (Tier
1).

Intervention categories Herd weight dynamics, herd size management, improved feeding and
breeding

Calculation details GHG emissions from livestock herds have largely been calculated using Tier 1
methods from IPCC (ibid.). However, information on changes in livestock
weight due to project interventions has been taken into account for the
various kinds of GHG processes using the Tier 2 approach from IPCC.
CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation were estimated based on a partial
Tier 2 approach considering project-specific animal weight using IPCC (ibid.)
for cattle and sheep and Dittmann et al. (2014) for camels. For all aspects
beyond livestock weight, enteric fermentation has been estimated using Tier
1 methods.
For N2O and CH4 emissions for manure management, the Tier 2 method from
IPCC (ibid.) was used, considering project-specific data on animal weight
wherever available.
GHG emission reductions from improved feeding practices, the application of
dietary additives, or the improvement in breeding practices on livestock-
related GHG emissions have been estimated using Smith et al. (2007).

Table 11. Estimation method for fertilizer and pesticides application,

production, and transport

Greenhouse gases N2O and CO2

Method basis Emission estimates from fertilizer application were developed using Tier 1
GHG emission factors (IPCC 2006), with methods from Lal (2004) for
fertilizer production and transport. These represent indirect, or off-farm,
sources of GHG emissions.

Intervention categories Fertilizer management, pesticide management

Calculation details CO2 emissions due to fertilizer and pesticide production, transport, and
storage, as well as from agricultural infrastructure establishment, are
estimated using Lal (ibid.). As nitrogen fertilizer production is an energy-
intensive process, fertilizer production is a major component of fertilizer-
embedded GHG emissions.
Field-based N2O emissions are estimated using the Tier 1 default values
from IPCC (2006). The level of nitrogen inputs is estimated based on

16
 project-specific data for fertilizer application rates for each cropping
system.

Table 12. Estimation method for urea deep placement (UDP) at constant
fertilization rates

Greenhouse gases N2O

Method basis Currently, insufficient empirical data are available to assess the overall
climate change mitigation benefits from UDP within flooded rice systems
across diverse conditions. Within this study, we adapted a conservative,
preliminary estimate for N2O emission reductions informed by field
measurements by Gahire et al. (2015) for flooded rice systems in Bangladesh.

Intervention categories Flooded rice

Calculation details UDP reduces GHG emissions. One source of reduced N2O emissions is reduced
requirements for fertilizer application due to less fertilizer runoff and
volatilization. However, many project teams reported that the prevailing low
fertilizer application rates of project beneficiaries would not decrease. Thus
the reported reductions in GHG emissions per area may underestimate the
GHG benefits from UDP in other contexts.
As a preliminary, conservative estimate we assumed for this study that UDP in
irrigated rice fields reduces direct N2O emissions by half. This estimate is
informed by field measurements from Gahire et al. (ibid.) that report still
slightly larger N2O emission reductions on rice in Bangladesh.
Owing to the anaerobic conditions, total N2O emissions in flooded rice
systems are thereby generally lower than in non-flooded cropping systems.

5. Conclusion

Investments in sustainable food systems provide opportunities for reducing future increases in
GHG impacts from a growing global population and changing consumption patterns. GHG
assessment of agricultural investments in bi- and multilateral lending operations are not
commonly practiced as part of project design, monitoring, and evaluation. Data intensity,
technical complexity, and cost implications function as important barriers for integrating
GHG assessments within investment decisions and policy-making.

The method presented here allows us to assess GHG impacts under data scarcity, using a
guided methodological process of reduced technical complexity. The joint evaluation of (1)
GHG impacts at project scale and (2) GHG emissions per unit of output (GHG emission
intensity) is well placed to identify GHG impacts in a holistic way. It identifies whether the

17
net GHG emission level is reduced and whether more agricultural goods are produced for any
given level of GHG emissions. The additional results indicator that quantifies GHG impacts
of specific management practices allows the GHG benefits to be attributed to particular
practices and technologies.

This rapid assessment technique is well placed for indicating the magnitude of GHG impacts
and for comparing GHG impact strength of different field activities or cropping systems. As
such, the assessment results are instrumental for informing investment and policy planners
when designing LED strategies in agriculture.

Single GHG estimates are associated with large uncertainties, and the method is not adapted
to provide refined GHG estimates with high location, crop, or seasonal specificity that is
necessary, for example, for carbon markets.

18
6. References

Bernoux M, Branca G, Carro A, Lipper L, Smith G, Bockel L. 2010. Ex-ante greenhouse gas
balance of agriculture and forestry development programs. Scientia Agricola 67(1): 31–40.
Bockel L, Grewer U, Fernandez C, Bernoux M. 2013. EX-ACT user manual: estimating and
targeting greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. FAO, Rome. (Available from:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ex_act/pdf/Technical_guidelines/EX-
ACTUserManuaFinal_WB_FAO_IRD.pdf)
Dittmann MT, Runge U, Lang RA, Moser D, Galeffi C, Kreuzer M, et al. 2014. Methane
emission by camelids. PLoS ONE 9(4): e94363. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094363
Gahire YM, Singh U, Mofijul Islam SM, Huda A, Islam R, Satter A, Sanabria J, Islam R,
Shah AL. 2015. Impacts of urea deep placement on nitrous oxide and nitric oxide
emissions from rice fields in Bangladesh. Geoderma 259–260: 370–379.
Garnett T. 2011. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36: 23–32.
Grewer U, Bockel L, Bernoux M. 2013. EX-ACT quick guidance. Estimating and targeting
greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. FAO, Rome. (Available from:
http://www.fao.org/tc/exact/user-guidelines)
Howarth, RW. 2014. A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas
footprint of natural gas. Energy Science & Engineering 2(2): 47–60. (Available from:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.35/full)
[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, eds. Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use 4: Hayama, Japan: IGES.
Karsenty A, Blanco C, Dufour T. 2003. Forests and climate change working paper 1:
Instruments related to the United Nations framework convention on climate change and
their potential for sustainable forest management in Africa. FAO, Rome. (Available from:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac836e/AC836E10.htm#P1400_179621)
Lal R. 2004. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International 30: 981–990.
Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon FM, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, Koch D, et al. 2013.
Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor
M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM, eds. Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK:

19
 Cambridge University Press. (Available from:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf)
Schoene D, Killmann W, von Lupke H, LoycheWilkie M. 2007. Forests and climate change
working paper 5: Definitional issues related to reducing emissions from deforestation in
developing countries. FAO, Rome. (Available from:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/j9345e/j9345e00.htm)
Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, et al. 2007. Agriculture. In: Metz B,
Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA, eds. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation,
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. (Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch8.html).
[USDE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. Appendix F. Electricity Emission Factors,
Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. USDE, Washington DC, USA. (Available
from: http//www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/pdf/Appendix%20F_r071023.pdf)

20
The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS) is a strategic initiative of CGIAR and Future Earth, led by the
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). CCAFS is the world’s most
comprehensive global research program to examine and address the critical
interactions between climate change, agriculture and food security.

For more information, visit www.ccafs.cgiar.org

Titles in this Working Paper series aim to disseminate interim climate change,
agriculture and food security research and practices and stimulate feedback
from the scientific community.

CCAFS is led by: Strategic partner:

Research supported by:

ISBN 978-92-5-109497-6

9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 9 4 9 7 6
I6422EN/1/11.16