Imagine „Green Field“ – a modern agricultural farm that decided to be not just a passive observer of climate change, but an active player in its solution. The farm management understood that for credibility and real impact it needed a systematic and transparent way to measure and report your emissions and, more importantly, your carbon removal activities. Why is the new standard key?

The motivation for the "Zelené Pole" farm was the adoption of a new Land Sector and Removals Standard. It is not a separate document, but a key supplement to the existing GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and Scope 3 Standard, which finally brings a unified methodology for the land sector. After analyzing global data, the management of "Zeleny Pole" realized that their sector is not the only contributor to the problem. The land sector is responsible for approximately 22 % of global emissions, but also acts as a huge carbon storage, representing up to 30 % of the global "land sink"„. This means that agriculture is the key to the solution.

This case study will guide you through the practical journey of the "Zelené Pole" farm, which implemented this new standard, and show how it transformed complex requirements into a clear and meaningful strategy.

Implementation path in 5 steps

Step 1: Defining goals and boundaries

The first and most important step was to clearly define what exactly they wanted to measure and what they were inventory limits. The farm management made several key strategic decisions:

• Setting Ambitions: The farm decided not to report only the mandatory emissions greenhouse gases. To demonstrate its leadership and proactive approach, it has also committed to reporting a voluntary category – CO2 removals through regenerative practices in their fields.
• Defining Boundaries: They included in their inventory all activities related to growing crops and raising livestock on their land. In addition to direct emissions, they also decided to include indirect emissions from purchasing fertilizers and fuels for agricultural machinery (Scope 3 emissions). However, in line with the standard, they explicitly excluded any forestry activities that do not fall within its scope.

When the farm was clear about, what wants to measure, the next logical step was to decide, like that will measure.

Step 2: Selecting methods

The standard offers different methodologies with different levels of accuracy. For emissions from Land Use Change (LUC), which are often a significant source of emissions in agriculture, there are two main methods: dLUC (Direct) a sLUC (Statistical).

The farm compared them to choose the most suitable one for its situation:

Since the "Zelené Pole" farm has detailed historical data about its land, it chose a more accurate method dLUC. The management understood that investing in a more accurate dLUC method would translate into greater credibility of their reports to investors and customers, while also providing them with detailed data for targeted improvement of the management of individual plots. After selecting the methods, the most challenging part followed – practical data collection.

Step 3: Data collection

At this stage, the farm team had to collect a wide range of data needed for the calculation, a combination of historical records, operational data and new measurements directly in the field.

• Historical land use data: The farm mapped how its land had been used in recent years. 20 years. This information is key for calculating emissions from LUC. If, for example, part of a meadow was converted to arable land 15 years ago, the emissions from this change must be included in the current inventory.
• Land management data: The team collected precise data on the consumption of nitrogen fertilizers, which are the main source of emissions N2O (nitrous oxide), and the consumption of diesel for tractors and combines, which causes fossil CO2 emissions.
• Data for CO2 removal: In fields where regenerative practices (e.g. no-till farming) have been implemented, the farm has initiated soil organic carbon measurements. The standard requires site-specific empirical data, so global averages could not be used.

With all the necessary data in hand, the team was ready for the final calculation.

Step 4: Separate reporting – A key principle of the standard

Here the "Green Field" team came across the most important and strictest principle of the entire standard: Emissions and removals must be reported strictly separately. Their netting is prohibited. This approach ensures transparency and prevents companies from hiding their real emissions behind carbon removal activities.

The resulting inventory of the "Zelené Pole" farm, structured exactly according to the architecture of the standard, looked as follows:

These numbers provide a clear and honest picture: the farm still produces 400 tons of CO2e per year, but at the same time, its activities have managed to remove 75 tons of CO2e from the atmosphere and store it in the soil. This detached view is key to setting realistic goals. The final step was to communicate these findings transparently.

Step 5: Transparent reporting

The final step was guided by the motto that is key to this standard:

Transparency is more important than perfection. Start with what you can measure today.

This motto is not an excuse for inaccuracy, but a call to action and gradual improvement. The „Zelene Pole“ farm published the results of its inventory in its annual sustainability report. But beyond the numbers themselves, it had to communicate other important aspects transparently. Together, these three concepts form the basis of credibility for any carbon removal claim:

• Permanence: The farm presented a monitoring plan to ensure that the carbon stored in the soil remains there long-term and does not escape back into the atmosphere at the first change in management.
• Carbon leakage (Leakage): They also analyzed the risk of carbon leakage, that is, whether their activities cause emissions elsewhere. This is the so-called. „"Carbon Opportunity Cost" – for example, whether a reduction in yields in their fields leads to the need for deforestation in another region to meet demand.
• Reversals: The company had to implement a mechanism to manage the risk that the stored carbon would unexpectedly escape. For example, an internal „"Buffer Pool"“, which acts as self-insurance to compensate for any losses.

With this step, the farm closed its first reporting cycle and paved the way for further improvements.

Key lessons from the journey of the "Green Field"„

The story of the „Green Field“ farm shows that a systematic approach to reporting emissions and carbon removal is not only possible, but also extremely valuable. It offers several key lessons for students, businesses, and anyone interested in the topic.

1. Separate reporting is the basis for: Never count emissions against removals. This approach provides a comprehensive and honest picture of your impact and prevents the dangerous practice of using future and often uncertain carbon removals to justify current, very real emissions.
2. Data quality is key: Investing in collecting accurate, locally specific data and in more advanced methods (like dLUC) pays off in the form of more credible results and a stronger position towards investors, customers and regulators.
3. Start now, don't wait for perfection: The standard is designed to be flexible. It allows you to start with the data you have and gradually refine and improve your reporting. Transparency about the methods used and uncertainties is the first step towards accountability and real progress.

By systematically measuring, reporting, and managing its impact, the agricultural sector, like the "Zelené Pole" farm, can fully realize its potential and transform itself from a significant source of emissions to a key part of the global climate solution. JRi&CO2AI