Estimating & Reporting

Fertilizer-Related Greenhouse
Gas Emissions:
linking Fertilizer Best Management Practices
with national climate change mitigation targets

A discussion paper for policy-makers1

1
This paper is based on the CGIAR-CCFAS 2018 paper “Estimating and Reporting Fertilizer-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions”.
BACKGROUND 4R NUTRIENT
STEWARDSHIP
Through the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Paris
Agreement (2015), the international community
has agreed to limit global warming to 1.5˚C above
pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. To
meet this target, significant emission abatement is
needed, most particularly from the highest emitting
nations and sectors. fertilizer-related emission reductions, resulting from
the implementation of Fertilizer Best Management
Agriculture accounts for an estimated 11-15% of Practices (FBMPs), and as such contribute to
greenhouse gases (GHGs), approximately a third national climate change mitigation targets.
of which comprises nitrous oxide (N2O) which has a
global warming potential 265 times that of carbon This paper reviews a number of these programs
dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year lifespan (IPCC, 2014). and initiatives and their links to National GHG
The sector’s emissions come from agricultural Inventories.
soils (39%), enteric fermentation (38.7%) and rice
cultivation (9%)2.

Fertilizer applications are estimated to represent

about 1.5 % of global GHG emissions, which is
1 ESTIMATING AND REPORTING
EMISSIONS AT NATIONAL LEVEL:
NATIONAL GHG INVENTORIES:
rather low considering that global agricultural
CURRENT MEANS AND GAPS
output would be reduced by 50% without the use
of mineral fertilizers. However, the fertilizer industry
is cognizant of the critical importance to reduce National GHG Inventories are required from each
GHG emissions, while increasing agricultural country by the UNFCCC. They include activity
production for a growing world population. This data, emission factors and methodologies used
can be accomplished by maximizing the nutrient to estimate GHG emissions from all sectors. Annex
uptake by plants and minimizing nutrient losses I countries (43 countries, either industrialized or
to the environment through the dissemination of with economies in transition) must submit these
Fertilizer Best Management Practices, such as the inventories on an annual basis, Non-Annex I
4Rs (using the right nutrient source, at the right rate, countries (153 mostly developing countries) submit
at the right time, in the right place). – for more them every four years.
information: “The role of Fertilizers in Climate Smart
Agriculture”. In order to report their emissions as accurately as
possible, countries are required to use guidelines
With the objective to estimate, measure and report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
fertilizer-related GHG emissions, the fertilizer industry Change (IPCC), which provides internationally
has engaged in partnerships that seek to quantify agreed methodologies to ensure the inventories

2
CGIAR, CCFAS “Big Facts on Food Emissions” : https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#theme=food-emissions&subtheme=direct-agriculture

2
are consistent and produce comparable data. and as such is not very precise. Plot/field-level
The IPCC Guidelines cover direct and indirect N2O Emission Factors can thus often differ from the IPCC
emissions from soils and CO2 emissions from urea 1% value.
and liming.
Certain analyses of national reporting of fertilizer
The IPCC offers three tiers (or levels) of reporting application with the Tier 1 emission factor have
emissions: Tier 1, which provides countries with established a strong relation between an increase
default emission factors (i.e. a representative value of N2O emissions and the rate of N fertilizer
that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant applied. Yet this reporting doesn’t provide any
released to the atmosphere with an activity room to consider emission mitigating Fertilizer Best
associated with the release of that pollutant3), Management Practices, summarized as the 4Rs,
for all countries to apply to their readily available which call for the right source of nutrients to be
national or international statistics (aka their activity applied at the right rate, time and place.
data); Tier 2, which has a higher level of resolution
to include more specific country or regional data
and more granular environmental factors; and
Tier 3, the most demanding in complexity, whose
methodology is left to national experts (with the 2 “BOTTOM-UP” APPROACHES TO
ESTIMATING FERTILIZER-RELATED
EMISSIONS:
provision that they follow stringent IPCC rules of
transparency on their methods). Tier 3 involves
detailed modelling and inventory measurements In recent years, the fertilizer industry has developed
tailored to address national circumstances. strategic partnerships in several regions of the
world to facilitate the more precise accounting of
Of the total 191 countries reporting their emissions GHG emissions from agriculture, which takes into
from fertilizers in their National GHG Inventories account emissions reduction resulting from site-
(specifically N2O emissions), 94.2% are reporting and crop-specific fertilization.
at the Tier 1 level, and 5.2% at Tier 2. Only the
United States currently reports at Tier 3 level for N2O Fertilizer Best Management Practices (FBMPs)
emissions from mineral fertilizers. It should also be in the 4 areas of nutrient management are
noted that 22% of Annex I countries as well as China being integrated into GHG emission accounting
and India report at Tier 2/3 level, which collectively to better reflect the impact of sustainable
account for 63% of global fertilizer consumption agricultural practices. So far, mostly developed
(IFA, 2018). at the sub-national level, all these efforts involve
bottom-up approaches to estimating emissions
Tier 1 reporting certainly continues to dominate associated with the adoption of FBMPs.
National GHG Inventories and emission estimates
for fertilizer application, however the default global
emission factor of 1% for direct N2O emissions from N
fertilizer application4 has always been considered
a rough average derived from global emissions,

3
EPA. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification
4
This EF is defined as the emissions from fertilized plots minus the emissions from unfertilized control plots expressed as a
percentage of the N applied.

3
UNITED STATES: FIELD-TO- MARKET

Field-to-Market is a multi-stakeholder initiative that emission factor, which was a simple approach yet
includes: growers; agribusinesses; food, beverage, with highly uncertain results. However, upon revisal
restaurant, and retail companies; conservation in 2017, Fieldprint Calculator emission factors
groups; universities; and public-sector partners in included measurements from the national N2O
the United States. Its overall goal is to improve the emissions estimating tool, USDA’S DAYCENT, which
sustainability of the U.S. agricultural supply chain. captures sensitivity of emissions to crop, Land
Resource Region, soil texture and farmer-applied
Field-to-Market provides a common framework N rates.
to measure environmental and socio-economic
indicators that can be applied at different scales, This system is currently available for corn, soybean
from the farm to national level. One of the environ- and wheat production in different regions of the
mental indicators is GHGs, which include CO2, United States.
methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Field-scale
emissions are measured via an online tool that
can assess the environmental performance of
management practices against local, state
and national benchmarks for key sustainability
indicators called the Fieldprint Calculator.

Over time, the Fieldprint Calculator has become

more precise, for instance in the case of nitrous
oxide emissions from fertilizers: until 2011, these
emissions were calculated using a default

CASE STUDY:

Following Vyn et al.’s 2016 research data analysis, which observed the relationship between partial net N
balance5 and N2O emissions with different levels of 4R implementation, the Fieldprint Calculator could be
even further improved in the future by including all aspects of the 4Rs:

At an intermediate level of 4R implementation, Vyn et al. observed a 7% decrease in N2O emissions from
the basic level (i.e. which follows soil testing and nutrient recommendations); while at Advanced/Emerging
level of 4R implementation, N2O emissions were reduced by 14% compared to the basic level6 (the three
levels of 4R implementation vary in requirements depending on the crop).

5
The basic model of a partial N balance is: [Farm fertilizer N + Recoverable manure N + Biologically fixed N] – Removal N by crop harvest =
Partial N balance. It excludes atmospheric N deposition, N in irrigation water, biosolid N application, soil erosion of N, gaseous N or leaching.
6
IPNI and TFI. 2017. Page 8

4
 CANADA: THE NITROUS OXIDE EMISSION REDUCTION PROTOCOL

In Canada, the fertilizer industry has recently NERP calculates N2O reductions by comparing
proposed that federal and provincial governments historic emissions baselines to projected or post 4R
implement a national 4R Climate-Smart Protocol, implemented emissions. The baseline is generated
also known as the Nitrous Oxide Emission Reduction from 3 years of yield and N use data for each crop,
Protocol.7 expressed in an average emission in crop events
unit (Kg CO2e/kg crop). The major requirements for
The Nitrous Oxide Emission Reduction Protocol quantification and reporting of GHG emissions are
(NERP) is a Nutrient Stewardship-based approach N inputs and crop outputs for each crop grown on
to mitigate N2O emissions from fields, that was the farm and for each baseline and project year.
approved for use in 2010 in the Canadian province
of Alberta. NERP allows for farmers to claim carbon
credits by adopting 4R nitrogen practices. The 4Rs
can be applied at three levels: Basic, Intermediate

N.E.R.P.
and Advanced.

NERP takes into account on-farm reductions of GHG

emissions from N sources and fuel use associated Nitrous Oxide Emission Reduction Protocol
with the management of fertilizer, manure and
crop residues for annual and perennial crops.

CASE STUDY:

Fertilizer Canada’s 2018 4R Climate-Smart Protocol strategy includes a reference to a 2016 study by the
University of Saskatchewan8 that has quantified the impacts of conservation tillage (i.e. soil cultivation
that leaves the previous year’s crop residue on fields before and after planting the next crop9) in Canada
from 1985 to 2010, including off-site benefits such as GHG emissions reductions and carbon sequestration.
The Report found that “off-site benefits […] resulted in over $1B (2014 CAD$) worth of value at $5/tonne
of emission reductions, of which $417M was attributed to reductions in N2O and fossil fuel CO2 emissions
saved. This example shows the power of value chain partners to scale emission reductions and removals
across landscapes in the cropping sector in Canada.”10

The Report also includes an estimate of NERP’s potential contribution to the Canadian economy should it
be implemented throughout Canada with proper investments, illustrated on page 6.

7
(https://fertilizercanada.ca/canadian-fertilizer-industry-poised-to-lead-agriculture-industry-in-reducing-greenhouse-gas/)
8
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cjag.12080
9
https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=413
10
Viresco Solutions on behalf of Fertilizers Canada. 2018. Towards a National NERP Carbon Management Strategy.
Page 4 https://fertilizercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/National-NERP-Carbon-Strategy-2018_vf-1.pdf
5
 NERP
Cumulative Constrained Potential (MtCO2e)*
Province Short Term Medium Term Long Term
(2018 - 2022) (2023 - 2027) (2028 - 2037)

Saskatchewan 0.34 - 0.57 1.00 - 1.67 3.51 - 5.85

Alberta 0.38 - 0.63 1.10 - 1.84 3.86 - 6.44
Manitoba 0.24 - 0.40 0.70 - 1.17 2.45 - 4.08
Ontario 0.25 - 0.42 0.73 - 1.21 2.55 - 4.25
Quebec 0.15 - 0.25 0.43 - 0.72 1.52 - 2.53
British Columbia 0.01 - 0.01 0.02 - 0.03 0.07 - 0.12
Total: 1.37 - 2.28 3.98 - 6.64 13.96 - 23.27
* Potential reductions were estimated for years 1 to 5, 6 to 11 and 11 to 20. Source: Fertilizer Canada, 2018

Fertilizer Canada’s goal is to achieve 20 million acres under 4R Nutrient Stewardship by 2020, which
represents 20 % of Canada’s crop land.

EUROPE - THE COOL FARM TOOL

The Cool Farm Tool is a farm-level carbon foot GHG emissions are reported in CO2 equivalents
printing tool that is run by the not-for-profit Cool (CO2eq) per ha of crops. GHGs from fertilizers
Farm Alliance, which has a wide membership also include emissions associated with fertilizer
among the food and beverage sector, retailers, production (for the main regions of the world)
fertilizer companies, NGOs, universities, etc. and distribution. The CFT allows for farm-level,
management and climate-sensitive N2O emissions
The Cool Farm Tool is freely available online and from fertilizers to be calculated based on simple
includes several modules, including GHG emissions, data such as fertilizer type, rate, level of inhibitors,
biodiversity and water use. The Cool Farm Tool can crop and yield, soil and climate and study locations.
show how the management decisions taken by
farmers contribute in sequestering carbon and/or
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

GHG emissions from fields are estimated by

including general information about soil and
climate, and a set of management options on
the farm which includes fertilization, pesticide and
herbicide use, residue management, machinery
and energy use.

6
 CASE STUDY:

In 2013, WWF India published a Report of a 2010 project entitled “Greenhouse gas emissions from cotton
farms in Warangal district of Andrah Pradesh”, where the Cool Farm Tool had been used to compare GHG
emissions from cotton farm plots that implemented traditional cultivation against plots who implemented
Fertilizer Best Management Practices.

Using the Cool Farm Tool (version 373), WWF India analyzed 48 cotton farm sample plots, 27 of which
were implementing FBMPs (which the project narrowed down to a balanced fertilization11) and 21 using
traditional practices. WWF India collected directly from the growers’ data such as: crop yields, fertilizer
application, organic matter application, pesticide application and volume of irrigation water provided.
The Cool Farm Tool then provided a total emission information per production area, unit area and ton of
finished product.12

The Cool Farm Tool then allowed WWF India to make comparisons between plots, such as the one below:

Table 12: GHG emissions from fertilizer application in BMP and TC plots

Plots Fertilizer Emissions due to Total net emissions

application fertilizer application

kg/ha kg CO2e/ha kg CO2e/T kg CO2e/ha kg CO2e/T

BMP 547 1,642 689 1,032 430
TC 1,127 3,312 1,506 3,236 1,500

Source: WWF India, 2013.13

WWF’s Report states that the key finding of the project was that: “Emissions from fertilizers are the major
determinant in overall GHG emissions in cotton cultivation, and therefore fertilizer management is the
most crucial management practice in terms of reducing GHG emissions”14. The Cool Farm Tool isn’t just a
calculator. It stimulates thinking about management, by showing hotspots and helping to develop action
plans at farm/field level.

11
i.e. giving the proper supply of all macronutrients and micronutrients in a balanced ration throughout the growth of crops
12
Idem, page 10.
13
Idem, page 32.
14
WWF. 2013. Cutting Carbon Emissions. Findings from Warangal, India. P. 9
7
EUROPE - THE SWISS CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM

An important tool in the 4R toolkit are fertilizer products, referred to as slow- and controlled-release
and stabilized fertilizers, that seek to match the release of nutrients from mineral fertilizers with crops’
requirements. Slow-release fertilizers break down gradually to release plant nutrients; controlled-released
fertilizers are encapsulated in a protective coating; and stabilized fertilizers slow the N cycle in the soil.

ABOUT STABILIZED FERTILIZERS:

An increasing number of farmers are exploring the use of urease inhibitors (UIs) and nitrification inhibitors
(NIs) to improve nitrogen use efficiency. By limiting nitrogen losses, UIs and NIs can be an effective option
to improve nitrogen use efficiency.

- UIs work by blocking urease enzymes Urea

so that the transformation of urea into Urease
Inhibitor
ammonia is delayed. A UI blocks the
conversion by attaching to the urease Urease inhibitors block the site where
enzymes at the same active site where urea attaches, reducing ammonia loss
drastically.
the urea would bind.

NITRIFICATION INHIBITOR

ABATED INHIBITION - Nitrification inhibitors delay the conversion

Nitrification inhibitors delay
Ammonium of ammonium to nitrate, and results in
ammonium conversion
by inhibiting the bacterial reduced nitrate leaching from applied
enzymes, resulting in fertilizers and fewer nitrous oxide emissions
improved plant nutrition.
due to reduced nitrification rates.

Inhibition lasts for only a period of

time before nitrification resumes.
Source: BASF. 2018. Nitrogen Use
Efficiency: Keeping Nitrogen on Target.

The Swiss Carbon Offset Program uses stabilized fertilizers to develop carbon offsets from reductions of
fertilizer-related N2O emissions, which can then be sold on the open market in Switzerland. The program,
launched in 2016 and managed by the company First Climate (which specializes in voluntary and
compliance carbon trading), works by using the proceeds from the sale of certified emission reductions
to reduce the price of stabilized N fertilizers for farmers.

The Swiss Carbon Offset Program calculates emission reductions from the use of stabilized fertilizers using
default emission factors defined by Switzerland’s National GHG Inventories. Under the Swiss Inventory
Report, the default emission factor value for direct N2O emissions is 0.25% (IPCC EF: 1%) and indirect
emissions (N leaching) is 7% (IPCC EF 30%).

The emissions savings resulting from the implementation of the Carbon Offset Program will be taken into
account in Switzerland’s National GHG Inventory of agricultural emissions as of 2018.

8
 EUROPE - THE EU NUE INDICATOR SYSTEM (EU NITROGEN EXPERT PANEL)

The EU Nitrogen Expert Panel (EUNEP) was define sustainable fertilizer N use. Put simply, NUE =
established in 2014 with the support of the N output / N input15. The NUE Indicator is simple and
European fertilizer association, Fertilizers Europe. flexible and requires N input and N output data.
The EU N Panel’s objective is to improve the overall Performance can fall into three different ranges
N use efficiency of food systems in Europe by of NUE: too high (> 90%) leading to soil nutrient
recommending effective solutions and communi- mining; too low (< 50%) risking inefficient N use and
cating with authority about N issues. high losses; and a desirable range between the
two extremes (90-50%), as illustrated below:
The approach of the EUNEP focuses on developing
benchmark metrics for several N indicators, to

Possible Targets
300
NUE = 90%
250
d
an Desired maximum
ut
N output, kg/ha/yr

NUE very high (NUE > 90%): u tp N surplus < 80 kg/ha/yr

200 o
Risk of soil mining N
E,
r NU
fo
150 nge NUE = 50%
ra
ble
s ira lus
100 De surp
N Desired minimum productivity
(N output > 80 kg/ha/yr)
20 NUE very low (NUE > 50%):
Risk of inefficient N use
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Source: EU Nitrogen Expert Panel, 2015 N input, kg/ha/yr

These desirable ranges have been identified at the beginning of the work stream undertaken by the
EUNEP. The Panel and its members are currently assessing multiple case studies at farm/field level, with
very different characteristics in order to identify the different desirable ranges for an appropriate NUE,
depending on the farming system or the soil conditions. Part of this work, which will be completed by
the end of 2018, shows that it is crucial to take into account the crop rotation while calculating the NUE
indicator at field/farm level16.

15
http://www.eunep.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Report-NUE-Indicator-Nitrogen-Expert-Panel-18-12-2015.pdf
16
NUE should be interpreted in combination with indicators such as soil organic matter, soil nutrient levels and crop yields. It should not be
seen as an absolute value; it is more the trend than the calculated value that is of relevance.

9
 CASE STUDY:

Fertilizer producer Yara has found through field trials with winter wheat that balanced crop nutrition (i.e.
giving the proper supply of all macronutrients and micronutrients in a balanced ratio throughout the
growth of crops) resulted in the highest level of NUE, and in the highest yields, as illustrated below:

BALANCED CROP NUTRITION TO AVOID A LOSS OF CROP YIELD

AND IN TURN A LOW NITROGEN USE EFFICIENCY (NUE)

Yield in % (highest yield = 100%), field trial with winter wheat

120

100 -8%

80 -26%
-33%
60
NUE: 85% 78% 63% 57%
40

20

0
N+P+K+Mg+S N+P+K+Mg N+P+K N+P

Source: Yara, 2018

By managing nitrogen more efficiently, farmers can better adapt to climate change, sequester more
carbon in the soils and reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases such as N2O emission intensity.

10
 3 LINKING DATA AND AMBITION: FERTILIZER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
(FBMPS) CAN CONTRIBUTE TO NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTIONS (NDCS)

Currently, the projects listed above are not NDCs are required of each signatory Party of the
included in National GHG Inventories and operate Paris Agreement, as are national post-2020 climate
independently. However, there is tremendous action plans that should help limit global warming
potential for these to complement or even align below 1.5 - 2˚C. NDCs are to be submitted every
with National GHG Inventories. It is assumed that five years to the UNFCCC Secretariat, and to show
countries would move to a higher level of Tier an increase in ambition over time. Of the 160
reporting should they have more data: in the case NDCs submitted in the first round (2015-2016), 103
of emissions from fertilizer use, capturing variations included agricultural mitigation and 17 mentioning
of field-level emissions, that can be attributed to fertilizers as a specific mitigation target.
mitigation measures (like FBMPs) would enable
them to report at the highest level, i.e. Tier 3. Countries wanting to demonstrate their progress in
Accounting for emissions reductions from FBMPs curbing emissions from fertilizers will be interested to
in national inventories could importantly lead to a be able to link their NDCs with their National GHG
recognition of their importance, and provide an Inventories to demonstrate progress in climate
incentive for pursuing FBMPs. change abatement. Additionally, as NDCs currently
do not have uniform requirements for implementa-
The improvement of quality data on FBMPs (for tion, it is an additional opportunity for countries to
instance their nature and use) would also facilitate support more “bottom-up” approaches that allow
these projects’ inclusion in national inventories. In for more consistent measuring of fertilizer-related
the United States for instance, where there is the emissions, and link FBMPs with a national climate
highest level of reporting N2O emissions at national change mitigation strategy.
level (Tier 3), the 4Rs are partially included in the
national modelling system DAYCENT, but certain Most of the sub-national projects listed in this
elements like the “Right Place” still remain outside paper are already well aligned with national GHG
its scope. The accuracy of the model’s result will be emissions reporting methods and are constantly
improved once all 4Rs are included. improved to provide quality data on fertilizer-re-
lated emissions. There are clear opportunities
This in turn would give a strong indication to farmers to better integrate FBMPs in national estimates
that the efforts they have undertaken and the of fertilizer-related GHG emissions and link them
GHG reductions they have achieved by adopting with countries’ climate change mitigation
FBMPs are being recognized at the national level targets expressed in NDCs. An important one is
and could motivate them to further engage with the development of nationally consistent and
climate change mitigation targets. project-specific monitoring, reporting and verifying
methods that would accurately capture FBMPs as
Last but not least, this would enable policy-makers mitigation measures.
to link their countries’ mitigation targets, expressed
in their Nationally Determined Contributions
(NDCs), with concrete data on emissions trends
and associated mitigation strategies.

11
Copyright © 2018 International Fertilizer Association – All Rights Reserved