REVIEW OF GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL EMISSION DATABASES Elverdin Pablo & Andrés D. Said WORKING PAPER 33 MAY 2024 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN PROGRAM CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Recent background ......................................................................................................................... 2 3. Greenhouse Gas Inventories .......................................................................................................... 4 3.1. Definition ................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 4 3.2.2. Principles .......................................................................................................................... 4 3.2.3. Tiers ................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2.4. Global warming potentials ................................................................................................ 6 3.3. Categories................................................................................................................................. 7 3.4. Global emissions trends ............................................................................................................ 9 4. Main sources of information ......................................................................................................... 10 5. Countries official submissions ..................................................................................................... 17 5.1. Developed countries ............................................................................................................... 17 5.2. Developing countries ............................................................................................................... 17 5.3. Biennial transparency report.................................................................................................... 18 6. Comparing GHG databases: A practical example ....................................................................... 19 7. Final remarks ................................................................................................................................. 22 Appendix I: Tier utilization for Annex I countries for generally key agricultural categories in year 2020. ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix II: Biennial Update Report submitted by non-annex I countries. ................................... 31 Appendix III: Methodological criteria and values for the AFOLU sector in the latest Biennial Update Report by non-Annex I countries. ........................................................................................ 37 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................. 50 TABLES Table 1: Global warming potential values over a 100-year time horizon defined by IPCC Assessment reports. ........................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: UNFCCC ............................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3: FAO ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4: OECD .................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 5: EDGAR ................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 6: Climate Watch ...................................................................................................................... 16 Table 7: GHG emissions for Annex I Countries from dairy and non-dairy cattle, and direct N2O from managed soils. UNFCCC vs FAO databases. Year 2020 ........................................................ 21 FIGURES Figure 1: Global agrifood system GHG emissions by life-cycle stage and per capita emissions 10 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) has consistently risen, leading to a 1.15°C increase in global mean temperatures by 2022. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms human activities as the primary cause of global warming, with emis- sions continuing to rise. Climate change has resulted in adverse impacts on various fronts, dispropor- tionately affecting vulnerable communities. International efforts, including the United Nations Frame- work Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, aimed at stabilizing green- house gas concentrations. These efforts were followed by the Paris Agreement in 2015, focusing on limiting global temperature increases and relying on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) from countries. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change mandates Countries to develop and regularly update national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. These inventories, aligned with IPCC methodologies, serve as crucial tools for transparent reporting, building mutual trust among countries for effective climate change agreements. National GHG inventories play a vital role in policy development, monitoring impact, and tracking progress toward achieving NDCs outlined in inter- national agreements, such as the Paris Agreement. Varying capacities for GHG inventory development among developing and developed countries, cou- pled with diverse reporting requirements, create challenges in data comparability. Developed countries face rigorous annual submission requirements, producing comprehensive National Inventory Reports and Common Reporting Format tables. In contrast, developing countries submit their national GHG in- ventories through Biennial Update Reports (BURs), and flexibility is granted to Least Developed Coun- try Parties (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) regarding submission timelines. The re- porting landscape is progressing, with the introduction of the biennial transparency report (BTR) for Paris Agreement Parties. The BTR, due by December 31, 2024, will convergence in methodologies be- tween countries. Transparency, consistency, comparability, completeness, and accuracy are key principles governing these reports. Fundamental methodological criteria when developing inventories include the selection of the IPCC guidelines version to use, the Tier number employed (higher Tiers being highly recom- mended for key categories), and the choice of global warming potential sources (WGP), enabling the summation of values for different gases. GHG inventories categorize emissions into 4 sectors: (i) energy, (ii) industrial processes, (III) agricul- ture, forestry, and other land uses (AFOLU), and (iv) waste. In this work we will concentrate on the emissions of the AFOLU sector, which encompasses various categories like enteric fermentation, ma- nure management, land, biomass burning, liming, urea application, direct and indirect nitrox emissions, rice cultivation, and harvested wood products. The AFOLU sector plays a substantial role, representing 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions dur- ing 2007–20161. Despite a 16% growth in agricultural emissions between 1994 and 2014, the sector's share in global GHG emissions decreased, demonstrating a positive trend attributed to reduced emis- sions from deforestation and improved agricultural practices. In this sense, the evidence indicates that 1 See https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2022/11/SRCCL_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2022/11/SRCCL_SPM.pdf 2 the sector has become more efficient in relation to emissions per unit of product, since in the same pe- riod it increased more than 63% in the same period (FAOSTATS, 2023). Although efforts still need to be deepened in order to achieve more sustainable agricultural production at a global level, future pro- jections indicate potential increases in agricultural emissions due to population and income growth and shifts in consumption patterns. Any mitigation proposal in the agriculture sector must include a real dimension of sectoral emissions. Much of the current discussion on emissions from agri-food systems is based on a comprehensive view of the value chain, much more comprehensive than those included in the AFOLU category. This in- cludes emissions up to the farm-gate, those from changes in land use and those from pre- and post- production processes, accounting with 31% of global GHG emissions. Without a doubt, the discussion on emissions from the agricultural sector has several aspects that are constantly evolving. It is worth clarifying that it is not the purpose of this work to focus on the debate about the sectoral cut that is proposed for the sector. But it is proposed to offer a summary of the calcu- lation methodologies and existing databases in order to contribute to the discussion. In addition to the official base where countries upload their national GHG inventories within the frame- work of the UNFCCC, other sources that regularly update information on greenhouse gases emissions from the agriculture sector have been identified. These organizations, encompassing the Food and Ag- riculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Re- search (EDGAR), Climate Watch, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), play a vital role in monitoring and providing insights into emissions data. The report describes and presents the characteristics of each database for clarity and comprehension. There is observed that, while some datasets aim to provide comparable information (using Tier 1 meth- odology approach), they lack official status and may lead to higher estimation uncertainties. That is to say, although this methodology enables comparability, it threatens the most efficient production sys- tems since it applies the same calculation methodology. On the contrary, in those cases in which re- fined calculation methodologies are respected, which allows for a better reflection of the real sectoral impact by country, comparability is quite complex (not only the Tiers vary, but also the GWP and IPCC guideline version used and the way in which that the categories are reported). Therefore, promoting consistency in greenhouse gas emission estimation methodologies, as proposed in the Biennial Trans- parency Report from 2024, is essential for enhancing comparability. 2. RECENT BACKGROUND Since the first industrial revolution in the second half of the 18th century, there has been a constant in- crease in the concentration of GHG such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Consequently, global mean temperatures have been rising rapidly. In 2022, the global mean temperature exceeded the 1850-1900 average by 1.15 °C, and the years from 2015 to 2022 ranked as the eight warmest in the instrumental record dating back to 1850 (WMO, 2023). In 2023, the IPCC released its Sixth Evaluation Report, scientifically affirming that human activities, pri- marily through GHG emissions, unequivocally caused global warming. Furthermore, GHG emissions continued to rise between 2010 and 2019 (IPCC, 2023). Climate change has already manifested in nu- merous adverse impacts on weather patterns, climate extremes, food and water security, human health, economies, and society, resulting in significant losses and damages to both nature and people. 3 Notably, vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected. In 1994, the UNFCCC came into force, the establishing a multilateral forum with the objective of stabi- lizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (UNFCCC, 1992). This stabilization must be achieved in a sufficient time to allow eco- systems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensure that production of food is not threatened and allow the development economy continues in a sustainable manner. The Kyoto Protocol, inaugurated in 1997 and enforced in 2005, marked the first instrument outlining concrete actions with quantifiable commitments to reduce GHG emissions. Developed countries, listed in Annex I of the Convention2, assumed commitments acknowledging their historical responsibility for the majority of GHG emissions (UNFCCC, 1997). The Protocol specifically mandated developed coun- tries to achieve emission reduction targets of at least 5% between 2008 and 2012 compared to 1990 levels. The Doha Amendment in 2012 sought to extend this commitment until 2020. In 2015, recognizing the need for increased ambition in GHG reduction, the UNFCCC adopted the Paris Agreement. Its primary objective is to limit the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to limit it to 1.5ºC, acknowledging the substantial risk reduction at this level (UNFCCC, 2015). To achieve its targets, the Agreement relies on individual com- mitments from countries, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). Each country must pre- pare, communicate, and maintain successive NDCs, outlining their intended contributions and imple- menting domestic mitigation measures. NDCs are submitted every five years, with a requirement for each subsequent NDC to surpass the previous one in ambition. The Agreement encourages countries to include quantifiable information, such as reference points, time frames, and methods, and empha- sizes the need for fairness and ambition based on national circumstances. Simultaneously, the Agreement encourages the development of long-term strategies for economic de- velopment with low GHG emissions. Currently, 68 parties, representing 72.4% of total emissions, have submitted their visions for achieving a low-carbon economy by 2050, aligning with sustainable develop- ment goals. Several parties have proposed ambitious targets, including the aim to achieve GHG emis- sion neutrality by 2050. The Paris Agreement was initially signed by 195 countries and, as of the date hereof, has already been ratified by 176 of them. Effectively, the Agreement came into force on November 4, 2016, 30 days after at least 55 member countries of the Convention, accounting for not less than 55% of global GHG emis- sions, accepted, approved, and ratified the agreement. The structure of the Agreement takes into account the initial gap between developed and developing countries, in the understanding that the first one should take the lead by undertaking economy-wide ab- solute emission reduction targets. Meanwhile, developing counties are encouraged to intensify their mitigation efforts, gradually transitioning towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets, considering their distinct national circumstances. 2 Include the industrialized countries that were members of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) in 1992, plus countries with economies in transition (the EIT Parties), including the Russian Federation, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States. 4 3. GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES 3.1. Definition The UNFCCC, from its inception, mandated that all Parties shall develop, periodically update, and pub- licly disclose national inventories detailing anthropogenic emissions from sources and removals by sinks of GHG. The Paris Agreement further emphasized that each party shall regularly submit a na- tional inventory report of GHG emissions, employing methodologies endorsed by the IPCC. National GHG inventories are essential tools for countries to transparently report their anthropogenic emissions and removals of GHG. These inventories provide a fundamental basis for mutual trust and confidence among countries that are needed for effective implementation of international agreements to address climate change. Additionally, national GHG inventories are an essential tool in developing poli- cies and in monitoring impact, providing invaluable information for those developing policies related to climate change and to track progress made in implementing and achieving the NDCs. 3.2. Methodology 3.2.1. IPCC guidelines The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed a global, standard methodology for the estimation of national GHG inventories. In response to ongoing research and evolving knowledge, the IPCC guidelines have undergone updates aimed at enhancing the preparation of these inventories. The initial version was published in 1996, followed by a second iteration 2006 (IPCC, 1996; IPCC, 2006). Subsequently, in 2019, the IPCC introduced the “Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,” providing supplementary methodologies and updated default factors to the existing 2006 guidelines (IPCC, 2019). Annex I countries, are mandated to employ the methodology outlined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Conversely, non-Annex I Parties3 have the flexibility to utilize the 1996 version. Furthermore, nations that wish to, have the option to adopt the latest iteration, the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guide- lines on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. However, from 2024 the guidelines on the methodology to be used will have some changes (see section 5). 3.2.2. Principles  Transparency. Data sources, assumptions and methodologies used for an inventory should be clearly explained, in order to facilitate the replication and assessment of the inventory by users of the reported information. The transparency of inventories is fundamental to the success of the pro- cess for the communication and consideration of the information. 3 Are mostly developing countries. Certain groups of developing countries are recognized by the Convention as being especially vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, including countries with low-lying coastal areas and those prone to desertification and drought. Others (such as countries that rely heavily on income from fossil fuel production and commerce) feel more vulnerable to the potential economic im- pacts of climate change response measures. The Convention emphasizes activities that promise to answer the special needs and concerns of these vulnerable countries, such as investment, insurance and technology transfer. 5  Consistency. A GHG inventory should be internally consistent for all reported years in all its ele- ments across sectors, categories and gases. An inventory is consistent if the same methodologies are used for the base and all subsequent years and if consistent data sets are used to estimate emissions or removals from sources or sinks. Under certain circumstances, an inventory using dif- ferent methodologies for different years can be considered to be consistent if it has been recalcu- lated in a transparent manner, in accordance with the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.  Comparability. The national greenhouse gas inventory is reported in a way that allows it to be com- pared with national greenhouse gas inventories for other countries. For that purpose, Parties should use the methodologies and formats agreed for making estimations and reporting their inventories.  Completeness. A GHG inventory covers at least all sources and sinks, as well as all gases, for which methodologies are provided in the IPCC Guidelines or for which supplementary methodolo- gies have been agreed. Completeness also means the full geographical coverage of the sources and sinks.  Accuracy. Emission and removal estimates should be accurate in the sense that they are systemati- cally neither over nor under true emissions or removals, as far as can be judged, and that uncer- tainties are reduced as far as practicable. 3.2.3. Tiers Parties may employ different methods (Tiers) outlined in the Guidelines, giving priority to the approach which are believed to produce the most accurate estimates, depending on national circumstances and the availability of data. The Tiers are linked with the methodological complexity of the calculation, with Tier 1 representing the basic method, Tier 2 as the intermediate, and Tier 3 being the most demanding in terms of complexity and data requirements. Typically, the Tier 1 approach is linked to default (D) emission factors, while higher Tiers are associated with country-specific (CS) emission factor values. IPCC Guidelines encourage the development and use of local emission factors (associated to higher Tier level) that are in line with national circumstances. Generally, transitioning to higher Tiers enhances inventory accuracy and diminishes uncertainty, albeit with increased complexity and resource demands for conducting inventories. It´s encouraged to opt for higher Tier methods for key categories, those sig- nificantly impacting a country's total GHG emissions, while considering their temporal trends and uncer- tainty values. Tier 1 methods are designed to be the simplest to use; equations and default emission parameter val- ues (e.g., emission and stock change factors) for these methods are provided by IPCC guidelines, as default values. Country-specific activity data are essential, but for Tier 1 activity data sources are often globally accessible (e.g. deforestation rates, agricultural production statistics, global land cover maps, fertilizer use, livestock population data, etc.), even though these data tend to be spatially coarse or from non-official sources. Utilizing data from official international sources is a best practice in cases where national data is lacking. Tier 2 generally employs the same methodological approach as Tier 1 but applies emission and stock change factors that are based on country- or region-specific data. Country-defined emission factors are more appropriate for the climatic regions, land-use systems and livestock categories in that country. Higher temporal and spatial resolution and more disaggregated activity data are typically employed in Tier 2 to align with country-defined coefficients for specific regions and specialized land-use or livestock 6 categories. The predominant option for the development of a Tier 2 involves obtaining values from field studies representative of regional agroecologial and productive conditions. An alternative approach pro- posed by the IPCC for the development of Tier 2 emission factors is presented for livestock emissions in cattle, sheep and goat, as well as for soil carbon in croplands. equations are provided to estimate emission factors for enteric fermentation and manure from the food intake of a typical animal in each subcategory (e.g., steers, cows) and specific coefficients, such as a methane conversion factor for en- teric fermentation emissions. For estimates of soil carbon, the Steady-State simulation model can be used, considered a Tier 2 calculation. Tier 3 encompasses higher-order methods, which are added to the information from field studies, in- cluding models and inventory measurement systems, tailored to meet national circumstances that re- peat over time. These methods are based on high-resolution activity data and disaggregated to the sub-national level. They provide more certain estimates than lower levels and may involve field sam- pling at regular intervals and/or age, class/production data systems based on Geographic Information Systems, soil data and land use and management activity data. These systems are often climate-de- pendent, allowing estimates from sources with interannual variability. They can be based in direct measurements, models or a combination of both approaches. 3.2.4. Global warming potentials The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was devised to facilitate comparisons of the global warming im- pacts of different gases, including CO2, N2O and CH4. The warming potential and life cycles of GHGs differ among them. Therefore, it provides a standardized of measure, enabling to add up emissions es- timates of different gases (e.g., for compiling a national GHG inventory). Additionally, it allows policy- makers to assess emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases. Specifically, GWP is a metric indicating how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The magnitude of the GWP signifies how much a particular gas contributes to warming the Earth compared to CO2 during that time frame. Currently, developing countries are enable to use the global warming potentials (GWP) outlined by the IPCC in its Second Assessment Report based on the effects of GHGs over a 100-year time horizon (IPCC, 1995). In contrast, developed countries are instructed to employ the GWP defined by the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, based on the effects of GHG for the same time horizon (IPCC, 2007). Starting from the 2024 inventories, all Parties are mandated to use the 100-year time-horizon GWP values from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report or those from a subsequent IPCC assessment report agreed upon by the UNFCCC, which will result in greater possibilities of comparison (IPCC, 2013). Table 1: Global warming potential values over a 100-year time horizon defined by IPCC Assessment reports. Report number edition CO2 N2O CH4 Second 1 310 21 7 Fourth 1 298 25 Fifth 1 265 28 Sixth4 1 273 29.8 / 27.2 Source: Author’s based on IPCC reports. 3.3. Categories Greenhouse gas emission and removal estimates are categorized into main sectors, each comprising related processes, sources and sinks: (i) energy, (ii) industrial processes and product use, (iii) agricul- ture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU), and (iv) waste. The AFOLU sector is often subdivided into (i) agriculture and (ii) land use change and forestry Each sector encompasses individual categories (e.g., transport) and sub-categories (e.g., cars). Ulti- mately, countries construct an inventory from the sub-category level, and total emissions calculated by summation. A national total is calculated by summing up emissions and removals for each gas. The AFOLU Sector include the following categories:  Enteric fermentation. A digestive process wherein carbohydrates are broken down by microorgan- isms into simple molecules for absorption into the bloodstream. This process produces methane as a by-product of the normal livestock digestive process, primarily dependent on the type of digestive system and the quantity and quality of feed consumed.  Manure management. CH4 and N2O are emitted during the storage and treatment of manure, and methane emissions occur from manure deposited on pasture, range and paddock. The term ‘ma- nure’ is used here collectively to include both dung and urine produced by livestock. Decomposition of manure under anaerobic conditions, during storage and treatment, produces CH4. These condi- tions occur most readily when large numbers of animals are managed in a confined area (e.g., dairy farms, beef feedlots, and swine and poultry farms), and where manure is disposed of in liquid- based systems. Direct N2O emissions result from the decomposition of manure under anaerobic conditions, with factors like the nitrogen and carbon content of manure influencing emissions during storage and treatment. The N2O emissions generated by manure in the system ‘pasture, range, and paddock’ are reported under the category N2O Emissions from Managed Soils.  Land. Includes CO2 emissions and removals resulting from changes in carbon stocks in biomass, dead organic matter and mineral soils on all managed lands, including forest, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements and other land. A distinction is made between emissions and removal be- longing to a specific land use or those associated with changes in land use. 4 In the AR6 report, an additional GWP for methane has been included to differentiate between methane which originates from fossil fuel sources, and methane from non-fossil fuel sources, like agriculture. 29.9 corresponds to fossil and 27.2 to non-fossil fuel sources. 8  GHG emissions from biomass burning. Involves emissions from fires resulting from incomplete combustion of fuel, including the burning of crop residues.  Liming. Used to reduce soil acidity and enhance plant growth, particularly in agricultural lands and managed forests. The addition of carbonates to soils in the form of lime leads to CO2 emissions as the carbonates dissolve.  Urea application. This fertilizer is converted into ammonium, a hydroxylion, and bicarbonate, lead- ing to CO2 emissions as the bicarbonate evolves into CO2 and water. This source category is in- cluded because the CO2 removal from the atmosphere during urea manufacturing is estimated in the Industrial Processes and Product Use Sector.  Direct N2O from managed soils. Nitrous oxide is naturally produced in soils through processes like nitrification and denitrification. Nitrification is the aerobic microbial oxidation of ammonium to ni- trate, and denitrification is the anaerobic microbial reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas. Human-in- duced net nitrogen (N) additions to soils, including synthetic N fertilizers, organic N from fertilizers, urine and dung N from grazing animals, and N in crop residues, contribute to direct N2O emissions.  Indirect N2O from managed soils. In addition to the direct emissions of N2O from managed soils that occur through a direct pathway, emissions of N2O also take place through two indirect path- ways, volatilization of NH3 and NOx, and leaching and runoff of N, mainly as NO3-, from managed soils.  Indirect N2O emissions from manure management. Nitrous oxide emissions from manure manage- ment can also result in indirect emissions due to other forms of nitrogen loss from the system. Re- sulting from nitrogen loss through volatile nitrogen losses, primarily in the forms of ammonia and nitrate, during manure collection and storage.  Rice. Refers to the anaerobic decomposition of organic material in flooded rice fields, producing methane emissions influenced by various factors such as rice species, the number and duration of harvests, the soil type and temperature, the irrigation method, and fertilizer use.  Harvested wood products. This category allows quantifying the carbon remaining sequestered in post-harvest timber products from the forest. Wood harvested from different types of land use, re- maining in products for varying lengths of time, constitutes a carbon reservoir. Although emission categories are well identified, unfortunately, not all countries report with the same structure. Even the structure proposed for reporting in the AFOLU sector of the IPCC Guidelines differs from that defined by the reporting guidelines on annual inventories for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention (Decision 24/CP.19). The main difference, lies in the fact that while the IPCC presents the AFOLU sector in an aggregated form, the reporting guidelines disaggregate it into two major sectors: i) Agriculture and ii) Land Use Change and Forestry. In general, with minor exceptions, the presentation of information among Annex I countries is very similar because they must submit Common Reporting Format (CRF) tables, a series of standardized data tables that define how to classify and report subcat- egory data. However, non-Annex I countries have greater flexibility in presenting information, and it is common aggregated values to be reported without the possibility to extract information by subcatego- ries. Fortunately, starting from the reports submitted in 2024, the presentation requirements for all countries will be unified, facilitating a standardized approach (see section 5.3). This will improve the comparison of national GHG inventories with those of other countries, enabling access to data for all subcategories. 9 3.4. Global emissions trends In 2022, GHG emissions set a new record, reaching 57.4 GtCO2eq, marking a 1.2% increase (equiva- lent to 0.6 GtCO2eq) compared to the preceding year. Although this growth rate slightly surpassed the average rate of the 2010–2019 decade, which stood at 0.9% per year, it remained slower than the emissions growth observed in the 1990s (1.2% per year) and the 2000s (2.2% per year). It is imperative for global GHG emissions to decrease significantly, aiming for levels between 33 and 41 GtCO2eq by 2030, to align with the least-cost pathway required to achieve the temperature goal outlined in the Paris Agreement (UNEP, 2023). In accordance with the categories established in the UNFCCC framework to report national GHG inven- tories, it is estimated that total net GHG emissions from AFOLU represent 12.0 GtCO2 eq yr-1 during 2007–2016. This represents 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions (IPCC, 2019b). Global models estimate net CO2 emissions of 5.2 GtCO2 yr-1 from land use and land-use change during 2007–2016. These net emissions are mostly due to deforestation, partly offset by afforestation/reforestation, and emissions and removals by other land use activities. Global AFOLU emissions of methane in the period 2007–2016 were 161 MtCH4 yr-1 (4.5 GtCO2eq yr-1). The globally averaged atmospheric concentra- tion of CH4 shows a steady increase between the mid-1980s and early 1990s, slower growth thereafter until 1999, a period of no growth between 1999–2006, followed by a resumption of growth in 2007. An- thropogenic AFOLU N2O emissions are rising, and were 8.7 MtN2O yr-1 (2.3 GtCO2eq yr-1) during the period 2007-2016. Anthropogenic N2O emissions from soils are primarily due to nitrogen application including inefficiencies (over-application or poorly synchronized with crop demand timings). Cropland soils emitted around 3 MtN2O yr-1 (around 795 MtCO2eq yr-1) during the period 2007–2016. There has been a major growth in emissions from managed pastures due to increased manure deposition. An alternative approach to inform GHG emission from agriculture sector consist on the global food sys- tem. It includes all the elements (environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions, etc.) and activities that relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food, and the output of these activities, including socioeconomic and environmental outcomes at the global level. If emissions associated with pre- and post-production activities in the global food system are included, the emissions are estimated to be 21–37% of total net anthropogenic GHG emissions. Given the diversity of food systems, there are large regional differences in the contributions from differ- ent components of the food system. Looking at sectorial GHGs evolution, emissions of the Agriculture sector have not increased signifi- cantly and almost all the increase on GHG emissions in agri-food systems between 1990 and 2019 was observed in pre- and post-production processes (FAO, 2021, Tubiello et al, 2022)5 (Graph 1), that for the purposes of GHG accounting under the Paris Agreement, belong to other sectors. 5 Land use emissions decreased by 25% while farm-gate emissions increases by 9% between 1990 and 2019. 10 Figure 1: Global agrifood system GHG emissions by life-cycle stage and per capita emissions Source: FAO, 2021.Note/Source (8pt) In fact, between 1990 and 2019, agricultural emissions grew 9% (measured in MtCO2eq.), while emis- sions from Land-Use Change and Forestry (LUCF) fell 14% during the same period. On the other hand, emissions from Industrial Processes, Energy and Waste grew 203%, 62% and 20%, respectively, so that the relative share of Agriculture and LUCF in total GHG emissions dropped in recent years. Thus, the share of Agriculture in global GHG emissions fell from 15.4% in 1990 to 11.6% in 2019, with a con- tinuing downward trend. Furthermore, the share of LUCF in global emissions fell from 5.9% in 1990 to 3.3% in 2019, albeit with a certain acceleration in emissions in the last five years. For their part, given their quicker annual evolution rate, the Energy and Industrial Processes sectors together increased their share from 74.6% to 81.8% between 1990 and 2019 (Elverdin, 2023). In other words, even in a context of an increase in world food production of about 83% between 1990 and 20196, AFOLU increased its GHG emissions by only 7.5% in the same period, which not only shows a marked reduction in emissions due to deforestation, but also entails improvements in agricul- tural productivity and in the use of more environmentally sustainable production systems. However, emissions from agricultural production are projected to increase, driven by population and income growth and changes in consumption patterns. Therefore, continuing to make efforts to improve the sus- tainability of food systems is extremely necessary. 4. MAIN SOURCES OF INFORMATION Five key data sources that regularly update information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the agriculture sector have been identified. These organizations actively engaged in this field include the 6 Gross Production Index. See FAOSTATS https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data 11 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Food and Agriculture Or- ganization of the United Nations (FAO), the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), Climate Watch and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The characteristics of each database are thoroughly described and presented for clarity and compre- hension. Table 2: UNFCCC Description All Parties shall develop, periodically update and publish national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHG. This database represent the official submis- sions presented by each party to the Convention. Link Annex 1 parties: https://unfccc.int/ghg-inventories-annex-i-parties/2023 Non annex I parties: https://unfccc.int/BURs Temporal coverage 1990- last year of presentation of official report by each country. Geographic coverage The 197 countries that are part of the UNFCCC are committed to pre- senting their inventories. However, there can be delays respect to the required frequency. Sector coverage Energy, industrial processes, waste, agriculture forestry and other land use Disaggregation by ag- ricultural products No Disaggregation by livestock categories Yes, for Annex I Parties. It is not always provided for Non-Annex I Par- ties. Global warming poten- tial Annex I Parties shall use the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, over a 100-year time horizon. Non-Annex I should use GWP provided by the IPCC in its Second Assessment Report based on a time horizon of 100 years. From 2024 reports each Party shall use the 100-year time-horizon GWP values from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, or from a subsequent IPCC assessment report as agreed upon by the CMA. Tier It is good practice to present key categories of each country with Tier 2 or 3. Since higher levels require greater resources, this has not been applied yet in all cases. https://unfccc.int/ghg-inventories-annex-i-parties/2023 https://unfccc.int/BURs 12 Activity data Each country defines the source of information for its activity data. Ide- ally, official data is usually used, and in cases where it is not available, international sources or extrapolations can be used. Use of country re- ported data to the UNFCCC Not applicable. AFOLU GHG Catego- ries included It includes all categories presented from each country, including crop residues, enteric fermentation, manure management, manure left on pasture, manure applied to soils, synthetic fertilizers, rice cultivation. It is a good practice that inventories were complete and estimates are reported for all relevant categories of sources and sinks, and gases. Table 3: FAO Description Provides free access to food and agriculture data for over 245 countries and territories and covers all FAO regional groupings from 1961 to the most recent year available. Link https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data Temporal coverage From 1961 to the most recent year available. The latest year available is 2020. Some visualizations also present projections for 2030 and 2050. Some categories present information since 1990 such as forest. Geographic coverage Over 245 countries. It also has groupings by region or total emissions. Sector coverage (I) Agricultural emissions called "Emissions at Farm gate". They in- clude Emissions from Energy use in agriculture. (II) Emissions from Land use and change, including categories of forestry, fires and drained organic soils. Additionally, it presents information on emissions from pre and post agricultural production, emissions intensity indicators and the proportion represented by the emissions of a certain sector. Disaggregation by ag- ricultural products It allows agricultural emissions to be disaggregated by crops (barley, beans, maize, millet, oats, potatoes, rye, sorghum, soybeans, wheat and paddy rice) for crop residues. For burning it can be disaggregated into sugar cane, corn, wheat and rice. Fertilizers do not have disaggre- gation. Disaggregation by livestock categories It allows agricultural emissions to be disaggregated by livestock spe- cies (asses, buffaloes, camels, cattle (dairy and non-dairy), goats, https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data 13 horses, llamas, mules, sheep, swine (breeding and market)) and rele- vant species aggregates (all animals, camels and llamas, cattle, mules and asses, sheep and goats, swine). Global warming poten- tial Although no specific mention was found, it is considered that values from the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC are used. Tier Estimates are computed at Tier 1 following the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National greenhouse gas (GHG) Inventories. Activity data Activity data are derived directly from FAOSTAT Use of country re- ported data to the UNFCCC Also for Annex I countries, the official values presented to the Conven- tion are offered. This FAOSTAT domain also disseminates the activity data and emissions reported by countries to the UNFCCC. Activity data are sourced from the most recently available GHG National Inven- tories or from National Communications. Emission data are sourced di- rectly from the UNFCCC data portal or from Biennial Update Reports. UNFCCC data are disseminated in FAOSTAT with permission, formal- ized via a FAO-UNFCCC Memorandum of Understanding. However, at the moment of writing this document, this information was not available for each category. AFOLU GHG Catego- ries included Crop residues, burning biomass from crop residues, enteric fermenta- tion, manure management, manure left on pasture, manure applied to soils, rice cultivation, synthetic fertilizers, forest, fires, drained organic soils, drained organic soils, energy use in agriculture, emissions from pre and post agricultural production. Table 4: OECD Description This dataset presents trends in man-made emissions of major greenhouse gases and emissions by gas. Link https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=air_ghg Temporal coverage 1990-2020 Geographic coverage OECD member countries and 202 non-OECD member countries. Sector coverage Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, waste, land use change and forestry, other. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=air_ghg 14 Disaggregation by ag- ricultural products No Disaggregation by livestock categories No Global warming poten- tial For Annex I countries these calculations were based on defaults from Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). As regards the non-Annex I coun- tries the factors from the following reports were used: Costa Rica, Is- rael, Korea, Peru - Second Assessment Report (AR2), Chile - AR4 and for Colombia, Mexico - AR5. Tier Although no specific mention was found, it is considered that countries make their emissions presentations directly to the OECD. In this case, it is very likely that Tier 2 or 3 has been used when it is developed by a country. Activity data Although no specific mention was found, it is considered that countries make their emissions presentations directly to the OECD. In this case, it would not be necessary to have activity data in order to make esti- mates. Use of country re- ported data to the UNFCCC For Annex I countries: Data source(s) used National Inventory Submis- sions 2022 to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, CRF tables), and replies to the OECD State of the Environment Questionnaire. No description is found for Non-Annex I countries, it is believed that consultations are made with the Govern- ments, who report their emissions. AFOLU GHG Catego- ries included It was not identified. Table 5: EDGAR Description A multipurpose, independent, global database of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution on Earth. Pro- vides independent emission estimates compared to what reported by European Member States or by Parties under the United Na- tions Framework Convention on Climate Change, using interna- tional statistics and a consistent IPCC methodology. EDGAR provides both emissions as national totals and gridmaps at 0.1 x 0.1 degree resolution at global level, with yearly, monthly and up to hourly data. 15 Link https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ Temporal coverage From 1970 onwards till year t-1 for CO2 and with 2 or even 4 years de- lay for other GHG respectively air pollutants and particulate matter Geographic coverage Over 220 countries Sector coverage Power Industry - Power and heat generation plants (public & autopro- ducers) / Other industrial combustion - Combustion for industrial manu- facturing and fuel production / Buildings – Small scale non-industrial stationary combustion / Transport – Mobile combustion (road & rail & ship & aviation) / Other sectors – Industrial process emissions & agri- culture & waste. Large scale biomass burning with Savannah burning, forest fires, and sources and sinks from land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) are excluded Disaggregation by ag- ricultural products No Disaggregation by livestock categories No Global warming poten- tial IPCC AR5 (GWP-100) Tier The global default values recommended in the IPCC 2006 guidelines were used (Tier 1) and where recommended, region-specific values were applied for other sources (Tier 2). Activity data Whereas the activity data for the agricultural sectors originate primarily from FAO. United States Geological Survey (USGS), International Fer- tiliser Association (IFA), Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR)/U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), UNFCCC and World Steel Association (worldsteel) recent statistics are also used for activity data. Use of country re- ported data to the UNFCCC It is not indicated. AFOLU GHG Catego- ries included Enteric fermentation, manure management, emissions from managed soils, emissions from biomass burning. At a macroregion level includes CO2 emission from Forest Land (Rossi et al., in prep.), Deforestation, Drainage of Organic Soils, Other Land use and their conversion. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 16 Table 6: Climate Watch Description Compiles a number of data sources to create a full gas, all sector inventory, comparable across countries by applying a consistent methodology, not to replace existing sources of GHG emissions data, but to complement them. Uses four different historical emis- sions data sources that are all slightly different in their scope and methodology. Link https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?breakBy=coun- tries&end_year=2019&re- gions=WORLD&source=Climate%20Watch&start_year=1990 Temporal coverage 1990-2019. It has 3-year lag. Geographic coverage 193 countries Sector coverage Energy, Industrial Processes, Agriculture, Land Use Change and For- estry, Waste, and International Bunkers Disaggregation by ag- ricultural products No Disaggregation by livestock categories No. But it offers emissions intensity, emissions per unit of meat pro- duced by each livestock category. Global warming poten- tial 100-years from the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC. Tier It is not mentioned explicitly. Since the database focuses on harmoniz- ing methodologies so that they are comparable between countries, could be inferred that Tier 1 is being used. Activity data International Energy Agency, FAO, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Carbon Project, Forest Resource Assessment. Use of country re- ported data to the UNFCCC In order to emphasize comparability of data across countries, it does not use countries’ official inventories reported to the UNFCCC. Due to the differences in data sources and methodologies used, Climate Watch estimated country GHG emissions are inevitably different than official inventories prepared by countries. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?breakBy=countries&end_year=2019®ions=WORLD&source=Climate%20Watch&start_year=1990 https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?breakBy=countries&end_year=2019®ions=WORLD&source=Climate%20Watch&start_year=1990 https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?breakBy=countries&end_year=2019®ions=WORLD&source=Climate%20Watch&start_year=1990 17 AFOLU GHG Catego- ries included Enteric fermentation, manure left on the pasture, crop residues, syn- thetic fertilizers, manure management, burning-savannas, rice cultiva- tion, manure applied to soils, cultivation of organic soils, burning from crop residues, cropland, grassland, forestland. 5. COUNTRIES OFFICIAL SUBMISSIONS Due to variations in capacity and resources among Annex I and non-Annex I Parties to the Convention, not all countries possess a complete time-series of greenhouse gas (GHG) data. The diverse reporting requirements and guidelines further complicate the comparability of inventories submitted by parties to the UNFCCC. 5.1. Developed countries Developed countries face more stringent requirements, requiring an annual submission. These annual inventory comprise a national inventory report (NIR) and CRF tables. The NIRs provide comprehensive descriptive and numerical information, while the CRF tables encompass all GHG emissions and remov- als values, implied emission factors, and activity data. Adherence to reporting requirements established under the Convention, such as the "Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Par- ties included in Annex I to the Convention, Part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual greenhouse gas inventories" (Decision 24/CP.19), governs these submissions. For generally key agricultural categories, Tier utilization was identified for each country (see Appendix I). For these countries, the UNFCCC has made progress in building a time series database where all updates to national inventories are periodically uploaded. Currently covers from 1990 to 2021. In this database it is possible to observe information on emissions and absorptions by sector (with openings by category in some cases) and by gas.7 The opening by category for the same time series has also been systematized, but in this case the information can be downloaded by country.8 Despite the sys- tematization in reporting and the categorization of Annex I countries, there is space for the existence of some minor differences. For instance, in the development modality of a Tier 2 in bovine livestock, presentation can occur in a disaggregated manner through various options: i) dairy and non-dairy cat- tle, ii) growing cattle, mature dairy cattle, other mature cattle, or iii) other structure defined by the coun- try. Finally, the UNFCCC database allows for a comparison by sector, category or gas between two member countries of the Convention for two different years.9 5.2. Developing countries Non-Annex I countries submit their national GHG inventories through Biennial Update Reports (BURs). These reports not only detail GHG emissions and removals but also encompass information on mitiga- tion actions, needs, and support received. They serve as updates on actions taken to implement the Convention, shedding light on the status of GHG emissions and removals by sinks, as well as efforts to 7 See https://di.unfccc.int/time_series?_gl=1*1dun1th*_ga*MTg4ODEz- NDI5Ny4xNjg3ODAwODg2*_ga_7ZZWT14N79*MTcwMjczNzY1MS4zOC4xLjE3MDI3NDA1OTQuMC4wLjA. 8 See GHG Profiles https://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_annex1 9 See https://di.unfccc.int/comparison_by_category and https://di.unfccc.int/comparison_by_gas https://di.unfccc.int/time_series?_gl=1*1dun1th*_ga*MTg4ODEzNDI5Ny4xNjg3ODAwODg2*_ga_7ZZWT14N79*MTcwMjczNzY1MS4zOC4xLjE3MDI3NDA1OTQuMC4wLjA. https://di.unfccc.int/time_series?_gl=1*1dun1th*_ga*MTg4ODEzNDI5Ny4xNjg3ODAwODg2*_ga_7ZZWT14N79*MTcwMjczNzY1MS4zOC4xLjE3MDI3NDA1OTQuMC4wLjA. https://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_annex1 https://di.unfccc.int/comparison_by_category https://di.unfccc.int/comparison_by_gas 18 reduce emissions or enhance sinks. Submissions adhere to reporting requirements established under the Convention, such as the "Guidelines for the preparation of national communications for non-Annex I Parties" (Decision 17/CP.8) and the “UNFCCC biennial update reporting guidelines for Parties not in- cluded in Annex I to the Convention” (Decision 2/CP.17). The initial BUR was expected in December 2014, followed by subsequent submissions every two years. Nevertheless, flexibility is granted to Least Developed Country Parties (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), allowing them to submit reports at their discretion. As of June 30, 2023, 91 Parties have submitted their BURs. Some countries have chosen to complement the BUR presentation with a National Inventory Report (NIR), providing detailed descriptive and numerical information. The syntheses of annual presentations are provided in Appendix II. Unlike what happened with Annex I countries, there is still no systematized database in the UNFCCC that contains all the information by sector of all non-Annex I countries. Recently progress has been made in systematizing the information by country, which can be downloaded in individual files, which has been annexed during the preparation of this report. Without a doubt, this reduces the difficulties of constructing a time series, which previously had to be done by extracting the information report by re- port. However, as can be seen in Appendix II, not all countries have been respecting the commitments of biennial presentation of their inventories. Likewise, the years reported, the way of reporting sector (in many cases it does not have opening by category), the global warming potentials and even the unit of measurement used differ between countries. As with Annex I countries, it is possible to download the information by country in GgCO2eq. according to what was reported in the BUR.10 Although it must be kept in mind that the methodology proposed by the successive IPCC guidelines and the GWP may vary between countries, which is not reported in the profiles. Taking these observations into account, the UNFCCC database also allows for some compari- son by sector, category or gas between two member countries of the Convention for two different years.11 Although it should be noted that the comparison parameters do not cover the entire spectrum of categories. In an effort to systematize the information from Non-Annex I countries, the GHG emission values from the AFOLU sector by category was consolidated in Appendix III. The values correspond to the most re- cent reporting year up to July 2023. This information is supplemented with details about each country's chosen methodologies, including the version of the IPCC guidelines, the Tier (1, 2, or 3), and the se- lected global warming potential. 5.3. Biennial transparency report Reporting under the Convention will be superseded by reporting of the biennial transparency report (BTR) for Paris Agreement Parties (Decision 18/CMA.1) The first BTR should be submitted by 31 De- cember 2024 at the latest, with some flexibility for the least developed countries and small island devel- oping States. The report, includes a national GHG inventory report and information necessary to track progress in implementing and achieving its NDC. The national inventory reports (NIRs) information of 10 See GHG Profiles https://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_non_annex1?_gl=1*1qxfo7f*_ga*MTg4ODEz- NDI5Ny4xNjg3ODAwODg2*_ga_7ZZWT14N79*MTcwMjc0Mzc1Ni4zOS4wLjE3MDI3NDM3NTYuMC4wLjA. 11 See https://di.unfccc.int/comparison_by_category and https://di.unfccc.int/comparison_by_gas https://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_non_annex1?_gl=1*1qxfo7f*_ga*MTg4ODEzNDI5Ny4xNjg3ODAwODg2*_ga_7ZZWT14N79*MTcwMjc0Mzc1Ni4zOS4wLjE3MDI3NDM3NTYuMC4wLjA. https://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_non_annex1?_gl=1*1qxfo7f*_ga*MTg4ODEzNDI5Ny4xNjg3ODAwODg2*_ga_7ZZWT14N79*MTcwMjc0Mzc1Ni4zOS4wLjE3MDI3NDM3NTYuMC4wLjA. https://di.unfccc.int/comparison_by_category https://di.unfccc.int/comparison_by_gas 19 anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHG will be electronically reported on common reporting tables (CRTs). The introduction of the BTR signals a convergence in methodologies between developing and devel- oped countries. Notably, the 1996 IPCC guidelines will no longer be applicable, and all countries will be required to use either the 2006 IPCC Guidelines or the 2019 Refinement. Additionally, GWPs will be standardized to a single value for all countries, utilizing either the 100-year time-horizon GWP from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report or from a subsequent IPCC assessment report. However, developed countries will maintain the practice of submitting an annual GHG inventory, while developing countries will transition to a biennial reporting schedule. 6. COMPARING GHG DATABASES: A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE As shown in section 4, there are various information bases on GHG emissions with different functionali- ties and degrees of openness, both at the level of countries, emission categories and type of gas that can be consulted. Although they all broadly show similar emission data, given the need for more precise analysis, the characteristics differ between them. While the UNFCCC reflects the emission data provided by the countries themselves, which for key categories should reflect calculation methodologies that more ac- curately reflect the GHG emissions of the agroecological and productive characteristics of local agricul- ture. In the rest of the bases, mostly, the need to contribute to comparability of the data prevails, so it is necessary to make some sacrifice in the sense of the accuracy of the value of the emissions. As for practical examples, we present in Table 2, emissions by category in the AFOLU sector for Annex I countries. In this case, the official emission data reported by the countries in the UNFCCC are com- pared versus the data estimated by FAO. The selection of FAO data for comparison is not accidental, since it comes from the interpretation that it is the estimation base that has the greatest openness by category and that has wide geographical coverage (it has estimates for countries that are not members of UNFCCC) and a long time series (since 1961). Emission values were extracted from official submissions under the UNFCCC for the year 2020, as well as values from the FAO database for the same categoriesand subcategories. It's crucial to note that while the UNFCCC database relies on the Tier number selected by each country (Appendix II), the FAO database values were estimated using Tier 1. Therefore, any comparisons between databases should be approached with caution. Significant disparities are evident between the two information sources, even in categories officially cat- egorized under Tier 1. For instance, in the case of direct emissions from crop residues, while FAO re- ports a value of 3.0 kg N2O, the UNFCCC indicates a value of 7.4 kt N2O, resulting in an almost 150% difference. In this scenario, the discrepancy arises from the estimated activity data, as the FAO calcu- lated a value of 188 million, whereas the country officially reported 468 million kg N in crop residues re- turned to soils. It is evident that the magnitude of differences between the two databases varies de- pending on the analyzed categories. On average, for crop residues, the difference in values falls within the range of 100%, while for fertilizers, the difference is much lower, averaging 12%. 20 In cases where the country applies a Tier 2 calculation, the reported emission differences between the two databases are generally attributed to the emission factor. This is exemplified in the case of enteric fermentation emissions from non-dairy (beef) cattle in Canada, where the difference is 40%, with emis- sions values of 545.1 kt CH4 in FAO and 765.7 kg CH4 in UNFCCC. In this instance, FAO used a de- fault emission factor with a value of 53 kg CH4 head-1 yr-1 for the North American region, while the av- erage emission factor in Canada was 71.05 head-1 yr-1. Although the values of bovine stock were simi- lar in this case, there was still a difference (10.2 million in FAO compared to 10.7 million in UNFCCC). 21 Table 7: GHG emissions for Annex I Countries from dairy and non-dairy cattle, and direct N2O from managed soils. UNFCCC vs FAO databases. Year 2020 Note: - Empty cells from UNFCCC database responds to difference on data opening reporting - “NO” (not occurring) for categories or processes, including recovery, under a particular source or sink category that do not occur within an Annex I Party; Source: Author’s based on UNFCCC and FAOStat FAO UNFCCC FAO UNFCCC FAO UNFCCC FAO UNFCCC (kt CH4) FAO UNFCCC FAO UNFCCC FAO UNFCCC FAO UNFCCC FAO UNFCCC Australia 5,8 11,3 21,0 8,1 62,1 9,4 1.326,6 — 44,2 — 4,3 — 125,4 — 40,4 — 0,1 — Austria 0,9 1,3 1,7 1,7 1,2 0,3 75,8 72,0 8,0 9,1 0,5 0,6 61,4 68,4 11,0 9,0 0,5 0,4 Belarus 1,4 6,2 7,3 6,8 1,5 1,5 162,8 130,1 16,8 5,7 1,3 0,5 147,0 174,1 16,3 8,8 1,1 0,7 Belgium 0,5 3,0 2,8 2,5 1,3 1,6 102,5 85,5 10,8 5,2 0,7 1,0 62,9 63,7 11,3 13,0 0,6 0,4 Bulgaria 1,5 3,5 5,7 5,7 0,5 0,4 20,1 — 2,1 — 0,2 — 24,0 — 2,8 — 0,2 — Canada 13,1 14,0 48,4 32,1 12,3 0,7 545,1 765,7 10,3 40,2 3,0 7,5 125,5 139,2 47,1 37,9 0,8 0,9 Hungary 2,4 0,6 7,0 1,6 0,5 0,2 41,0 — 4,2 — 0,3 — 22,4 — 2,6 — 0,2 — Cyprus 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,3 NO 1,3 2,5 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 1,7 4,8 0,1 0,7 0,0 0,0 Czechia 1,5 3,1 4,5 4,5 0,5 0,6 57,0 61,6 5,9 3,7 0,5 0,3 35,3 57,4 3,9 4,8 0,3 0,2 Denmark 1,8 3,1 3,7 4,0 0,9 0,6 53,3 38,1 5,6 13,4 0,4 0,3 66,1 89,3 11,9 27,7 0,6 0,5 Estonia 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,7 0,2 0,1 9,6 — 1,0 — 0,1 — 9,9 — 1,8 — 0,1 — Finland 0,6 1,4 2,2 2,2 0,5 0,4 33,0 33,6 3,5 3,9 0,2 0,3 29,9 41,9 5,4 8,4 0,3 0,2 France 9,9 13,4 32,7 32,1 11,8 25,3 817,1 767,0 93,9 48,8 5,8 2,7 404,2 431,2 76,4 37,7 3,6 1,4 Germany 7,7 5,4 19,9 13,0 7,0 3,5 420,7 357,5 44,3 56,6 3,0 2,4 458,8 552,1 82,3 91,1 4,0 2,4 Greece 0,5 0,8 3,2 3,2 3,0 3,2 25,8 27,0 3,6 1,6 0,2 0,1 10,1 10,8 2,5 1,0 0,1 0,1 Hungary 2,4 3,0 7,0 7,0 0,5 0,5 41,0 38,4 4,2 6,8 0,3 0,3 22,4 30,7 2,6 7,3 0,2 0,3 Iceland 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,1 3,1 — 0,3 — 0,0 — 3,0 — 0,5 — 0,0 — Ireland 0,3 0,7 6,0 7,2 4,4 4,3 289,2 273,1 30,4 29,0 2,0 0,9 170,4 184,8 30,6 17,2 1,5 0,2 Italy 3,0 7,4 9,0 8,8 5,5 2,6 258,1 208,9 32,9 43,9 1,8 1,4 218,9 222,3 47,7 36,8 1,9 1,1 Japan 2,0 1,8 5,8 3,8 4,3 0,1 144,2 155,2 3,1 6,3 2,0 2,2 57,0 135,5 8,3 81,1 0,3 2,1 Latvia 0,7 0,6 1,3 1,3 0,3 0,2 15,0 — 1,6 — 0,1 — 15,9 — 2,9 — 0,1 — Lithuania 1,2 1,4 2,9 3,1 0,4 0,5 22,6 23,9 2,4 3,0 0,2 0,1 27,2 31,0 4,9 3,2 0,2 0,2 Luxembourg 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 7,8 — 0,8 — 0,1 — 6,3 — 1,1 — 0,1 — Malta 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 NO 0,5 — 0,1 — 0,0 — 0,7 — 0,3 — 0,0 — Monaco - NO - NO - NO - NO - NO - NO - NO - NO - NO Netherlands 0,4 1,1 3,4 4,0 2,5 3,0 121,0 — 12,7 — 0,9 — 183,6 — 32,9 — 1,6 — New Zealand 0,2 0,9 7,4 5,2 26,6 13,1 314,8 239,2 5,2 3,3 1,0 NO 435,3 561,4 113,0 55,5 0,4 NO Norway 0,2 0,2 1,7 1,7 1,0 0,6 37,0 — 3,9 — 0,3 — 25,7 — 4,6 — 0,2 — Poland 4,8 6,4 14,3 16,2 2,3 1,7 240,9 — 24,9 — 1,9 — 210,4 — 23,4 — 1,5 — Portugal 0,2 0,6 1,7 1,6 1,5 3,0 83,1 83,2 14,7 2,7 0,6 0,1 27,2 31,6 8,0 6,2 0,2 0,1 Romania 3,3 6,5 7,4 7,4 3,3 4,4 44,7 48,6 4,6 1,9 0,4 0,1 112,8 138,5 12,5 7,5 0,8 0,4 Russian Federation 26,9 38,8 30,1 41,2 11,4 8,3 670,2 592,0 69,3 30,7 5,4 1,4 650,6 693,1 72,3 29,7 4,7 5,3 Slovakia 0,8 1,1 2,0 2,0 0,2 0,2 18,6 19,6 1,9 0,7 0,2 0,1 12,1 14,9 1,3 1,0 0,1 0,1 Slovenia 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,1 22,0 — 2,3 — 0,2 — 11,6 — 2,1 — 0,1 — Spain 4,8 2,6 16,6 16,4 7,6 8,7 332,1 364,9 46,6 24,2 2,3 0,8 94,9 101,1 22,2 29,7 0,8 0,3 Sweden 1,1 1,4 3,4 3,4 0,9 1,2 61,9 57,3 6,5 4,4 0,4 0,3 35,6 44,6 6,4 2,8 0,3 0,2 Switzerland 0,2 0,6 0,7 0,6 1,0 0,7 55,3 — 5,8 — 0,4 — 63,7 — 11,4 — 0,6 — Türkiye 7,1 11,6 32,3 32,3 43,0 23,7 361,3 529,3 11,7 11,2 0,3 2,8 290,2 565,8 12,6 134,9 0,2 3,7 Ukraine 12,0 31,2 27,0 30,6 1,5 3,3 76,9 — 8,0 — 0,6 — 174,8 — 19,4 — 1,3 — United Kingdom 3,6 5,5 15,2 10,9 12,2 2,4 442,1 415,8 46,5 52,8 3,1 4,4 217,5 229,4 39,0 71,2 1,9 1,0 United States of America 80,6 234,1 182,6 214,3 105,7 41,6 4.475,9 — 84,5 — 24,8 — 1.195,9 — 448,4 — 7,6 — Country Crop Residues (kt N2O) Direct N2O Emissions From Managed Soils Manure Management (kt N2O) Urine and Dung Deposited by Grazing Animals (kt N2O) Inorganic N Fertilizers (kt N2O) Dairy Cattle Enteric Fermentation (kt CH4)Enteric Fermentation (kt CH4) Manure Management (kt CH4)Manure Management (kt CH4) Manure Management (kt N2O) Non Dairy Cattle 22 7. FINAL REMARKS Responding to climate change will only be possible if all the countries of the world are committed to it. Finding the solution to the problem requires responsibility, because all contaminating activities cannot be suddenly discontinued; rather, a gradual conversion process must be commenced towards more sustainable production and consumption systems. The Paris Agreement represented a great step forward not only towards the acknowledgement of the problem, but also for the attempt to find a global solution to it. Despite commendable progress, projec- tions indicate that more ambitious commitments are imperative to reach the established targets. Global emissions are currently deviating from the projected global mitigation pathways aligned with the tem- perature objective of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2023). The timeframe for enhancing ambition and enacting established commitments to constrain the temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial lev- els is rapidly narrowing. There is an urgent need for heightened commitment to implement domestic mitigation measures and establish more ambitious targets in NDCs. Generating proposals based on a full understanding of the dynamics of sectoral emissions is a priority. Even more, it is necessary that these proposals be based on science and respect the principle of Common But Differentiated Respon- sibilities (CBDR) in order not to generate policies that unjustifiably attack small producers and the de- velopment possibilities of the least developed countries. Due to lower emissions growth rates than those reflected in other sectors, the proportion of global GHG emissions attributable to agriculture has declined from 15.4% in 1990 to 11.6% in 2019, showing a con- sistent downward trend. Remarkably, this reduction occurred amid a substantial 83% increase in world food production over the same period, although the agricultural sector experienced a 15.8% rise in emissions during this time. Even emissions from land-use change and forestry (LUCF) fell 14.1 percent. Meanwhile, emissions from industrial processes, energy, and waste grew 203.0%, 62.0%, and 19.9%, in the same period, respectively. However, it should be noted that consumer demand for products set apart by their lesser environmental impact will be ever growing. Also, it is expected that due to population growth and changes in consump- tion trends, sectoral emissions are expected to continue increasing. Therefore, this fact should not be ignored and the promotion of environmental efficiency in food production must be deepened, while cre- ating tools that allow academics, policy makers and the general public to correctly interpret the carbon footprint and provide a coherent justification for their decision. Recognizing the differences between the existing GHG emissions bases and the calculation methodol- ogies used is a substantial factor to generate substantive contributions to the discussion. Errors of judg- ment concerning sector emissions are generating considerable pressure for the establishment of a growing number of new environmental barriers to trade that lack scientific basis, but have significant implications for global food security and environmental sustainability, as well as on the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the planet. The comprehensive vision of agri-food systems, although it is logical when integrating agriculture with its value chain, in order to explain sectoral GHG emissions complicates the situation, since it naturally tends to think that most of the increase in Emissions are related to farm-gate production and land use change, when we have seen that this is not the case. 23 Beyond the responsibilities of the agricultural sector, on which work must continue in order to increase the mitigation capacity of the sector, it is necessary to recognize and reflect in the case studies, as well as in public policy, that not all agriculture and not all countries emit GHG in the same amount, with rela- tively important differentials in some cases. When examining and comparing GHG emission values across different countries, the ideal scenario involves to promote the consistency throw the use of similar methodologies to estimate these emis- sions. In such cases, differences in the results between countries would reflect real differences in emis- sions rather than variations due to differing methodological approaches. Consequently, some datasets have been developed with the goal of creating a comparable dataset across countries, employing a fixed GWP, a specific version of the IPCC guidelines, and a Tier 1 approach. Depending on the study's objectives, these databases may be deemed acceptable. However, it is crucial to note that they do not provide official information, and the use of default emission factors fails to capture the unique produc- tive characteristics and trends of a country over time, potentially leading to higher estimation uncertain- ties. Currently, the UNFCCC's requirements for the use of global warming potentials and IPCC guidelines versions differ between developed and developing countries. Given that the majority of emissions from the agricultural sector involve CH4 and N2O gases, variations in warming potential values could impact the comparability of emissions between different countries. This is especially relevant unless the com- parison is made directly between categories in units of the specific gas itself, without converting it to the common unit of CO2 equivalent. Fortunately, many of these variations in methodological criteria are set to be standardized with the presentation of inventories through the Biennial Transparency Report from 2024. 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY Elverdin, P. 2023. Environmental sustainability of agrifood systems: Searching for global efficiency in food production. Book chapter in From Farm to Table: Agrifood Systems and Trade Challenges in the Southern Cone, LAC Working Paper 30. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.137016. FAO. 2021. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture – Systems at Breaking point. SOLAW 2021 synthesis report. Rome. IPCC. 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Published in https://www.ipcc.ch/site/ assets/up- loads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.- https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.137016 24 K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. IPCC. 2023. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1-34, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001 IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Published in https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/spanish/index.html IPCC. 2019a. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Published in https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html IPCC. 2019b. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on cli- mate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson- Delmotte, H.- O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. 1996. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Published in https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.html Tubiello, F.; Karl, K.; Flammini, A.; Gutschow, J.; Obli-Laryea, G.; Conchedda, G.;Pan, X.; Qiu, S.; Heiðarsdóttir, H.; Wanner, N.; Quadrelli, R.; Souza, L.; Benoit, P.; Hayek, M.; Sandalow, D.; Mencos Contreras, E.; Rosenzweig, C.; Rosero-Moncayo, J.; Conforti, P. and Torero, M. 2022. Pre- and post- production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth System. Science. Data, volume 14, number 4, pages 1795—1809. https://essd.copernicus.org/arti- cles/14/1795/2022/ UNEP. 2023. Emissions Gap Report 2023: Broken Record – Temperatures hit new highs, yet world fails to cut emissions (again). United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/43922. UNFCCC. 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Published in https://un- fccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf UNFCCC. 1997. Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Pub- lished in https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/cop3/l07a01.pdf UNFCCC. 2015. Paris Agreement. Published in https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agree- ment.pdf UNFCCC. 2023. Technical dialogue of the first global stocktake. Synthesis report by the co-facilitators on the technical dialogue. Published in https://unfccc.int/documents/631600 [WMO] World Meteorological Organization. 2023. State of the Global Climate in 2022. Published in https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/wmo-statement-state-of-global-climate https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/spanish/index.html https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.html https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1795/2022/ https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1795/2022/ https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/cop3/l07a01.pdf https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf https://unfccc.int/documents/631600 https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/wmo-statement-state-of-global-climate 25 APPENDIX I: TIER UTILIZATION FOR ANNEX I COUNTRIES FOR GENERALLY KEY AGRICULTURAL CATEGORIES IN YEAR 2020. Country Field Burning of Agricul- tural Resi- dues Rice Culti- vation Direct N2O Emissions From Managed Soils Indirect N2O Emissions from Managed Soils Crop Resi- dues Cultiva- tion of Organic Soils Inorganic N Fertili- zers Urine and Dung Deposited by Grazing Ani- mals Mineralization Associ- ated with Loss Organic Matter Organic N Ferti- lizers - Animal Manure Applied to Soils Atmosphe- ric deposi- tion Nitrogen Leaching and Run- off Australia CS T1 T2 T1 T2 T2 T2 T2 T1 CS,T2 Austria T1 NA T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Belarus NA NA T1 T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T1 Belgium NA NA T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Bulgaria D T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Canada T1 NA T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T1 T1 Hungary NA NA T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Cyprus T1 NA T1 NA T1 NA NA T1 T1 NA Czechia NA NA T1,T2 NA T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T1 Denmark T1 NA CS,NA,T 1 NA,T1 NA,T1 T1,T2 NA,T2 NA,T1,T2 T1,T2 NA,T1,T2 Estonia NA NA T1 T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 D,T1 Finland CS NA T1 T2 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 France T2 T1 T1,T2 T1,T2 T1,T2 T1,T2 NA T1,T2 T1,T2 T1,T2 Germany NA NA T2 T2 T2 T1 T1 T2 T1 T1 26 Greece T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T1 Hungary T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T2 T1 T1 T1 Iceland NA NA T1b T2 T1 T1 NA T1 T1b T1b Ireland NA NA T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Italy T1 T2 CS T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T1 Japan T1 T3 CS,T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 Latvia NA NA T1 T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T1 Lithuania NA NA T2 T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T1 Luxem- burg NA NA T1 NA T1 T1 T1 T1 T2 T1 Malta NA NA T1 NA T1 NA T1 T1 T1 T1 Monaco NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nether- lands NA NA T1b T2 T1b T1 NA T1b T1 T1 New Ze- land T2 NA T2 T1 T2 T1,T2 T1 T1 T1 T1 Norway T1 NA T1 T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T1 Poland D NA T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T3 Portugal T1,T2 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 NA T1 T2 T1 Romania T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T1 Russian Federa- tion NA T1 CS T1 T2 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 27 Slovakia NA NA T1 NA T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T2 Slovenia NA NA T1 T1 T1 T1 T2 T1 T1 T1 Spain T2 T1 CS,T1 NA CS,T1 CS,T1 NA CS,T1 CS,T2 CS,T2 Sweden NA NA T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T2 CS CS Switzer- land NA NA T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T3 T3 T3 Türkiye T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 NA T1 T1 T1 Ukraine NA T1 CS T1 T1 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 United Kingdom NA NA T1 T1,T2 T2 T2 T1 T2 T1 T1 United States OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER T1: Tier 1; T2: Tier 2; T3: Tier 3; NA: (not applicable) for activities under a given source/sink category that do occur within the Party but do not result in emissions or removals of a specific gas; CS: country-specific information. 28 Country Non Dairy Cattle Dairy Cattle Enteric Fermentation Manure Management CH4 Manure Management N2O Enteric Fermentation Manure Manage- ment CH4 Manure Manage- ment N2O Australia — — — — — — Austria T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 Belarus T2 T2 T1 T2 T2 T1 Belgium T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 Bulgaria — — — — — — Canada T2 T2 T1 T2 T2 T2 Hungary — — — — — — Cyprus T1 T2 T1 T2 T2 T1 Czechia T2 T1,T2 T2 T2 T1,T2 T2 Denmark NA,T2 CS,NA,T2 NA,T2 NA,T2 CS,NA,T2 NA,T1,T2 Estonia — — — — — — Finland T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 France T2,T3 T2 T2 T2,T3 T2 T2 Germany T2 T2 T2 T3 T2 T2 Greece T2 T2 D T2 T2 D Hungary T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 Iceland — — — — — — 29 Ireland CS,T2 T2 T2 CS,T2 T2 T2 Italy T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 Japan CS CS CS CS CS CS Latvia — — — — — — Lithuania T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 Luxemburg — — — — — — Malta — — — — — — Monaco NA NA NA NA NA NA Netherlands — — — — — — New Zeland T2 T2 NA T2 T2 NA Norway — — — — — — Poland — — — — — — Portugal T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 Romania T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 Russian Federa- tion CS,T2 CS,T2 T1 CS,T2 CS,T2 T1 Slovakia T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 Slovenia — — — — — — Spain CS,T2 T2 T2 CS,T2 T2 T2 Sweden CS T2 CS,NA,T2 CS T2 CS,NA,T2 30 Switzerland — — — — — — Türkiye T2 T1 T1 T2 T1 T1 Ukraine — — — — — — United Kingdom T3 T2 T2 T3 T2 T2 United States — — — — — — T1: Tier 1; T2: Tier 2; T3: Tier 3; NA: (not applicable) for activities under a given source/sink category that do occur within the Party but do not result in emissions or removals of a specific gas; CS: country-specific information. Empty cells (-) responds to difference on data opening reporting 31 APPENDIX II: BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT SUBMITTED BY NON-ANNEX I COUNTRIES. Country BUR1 BUR2 BUR3 BUR4 BUR5 Last NIR Afghanistan 2019 - - - - 2020 Albania 2021 - - - - 2021 Algeria - - - - - - Andorra 2014 2017 2019 2021 - - Angola - - - - - - Antigua and Barbuda 2020 - - - - 2020 Argentina 2015 2017 2019 2021 - 2022 Armenia 2016 2018 2021 - - 2021 Azerbaijan 2015 2018 - - - - Bahamas 2022 - - - - - Bharain - - - - - - Bangladesh - - - - - - Barbados - - - - - - Belize 2021 - - - - 2021 Benin 2019 - - - - 2019 Bhutan 2022 - - - - - Bolivia - - - - - - Bosnia and Herzego- vina 2015 2017 2023 - - - Botswana 2019 - - - - - Brazil 2014 2017 2019 2020 - - Brunei Darussalam - - - - - - Burkina Faso 2021 - - - - - Burundi 2022 - - - - - 32 Cabo Verde (Republic of) - - - - - - Cambodia 2020 - - - - 2020 Cameroon - - - - - - Central African Repu- blic - - - - - - Chad - - - - - - Chile 2015 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 China 2017 2019 - - - - Colombia 2015 2018 2022 - - 2022 Comoros - - - - - - Congo - - - - - - Cook Islands - - - - - - Costa Rica 2015 2019 - - - 2020 Cote d'Ivoire 2018 - - - - - Cuba 2020 - - - - - Cyprus - - - - - - Democratic People´s Republic of Korea - - - - - - Democratic Republic of the Congo 2022 - - - - 2023 Djibouti - - - - - - Dominica - - - - - - Dominican Republic 2020 - - - - - Ecuador 2016 2023 - - - 2023 Egypt 2019 - - - - - El Salvador 2018 - - - - - Equatorial Guinea - - - - - - Eritrea 2021 - - - - - 33 Eswatini - - - - - - Ethiopia - - - - - - Fiji - - - - - - Gabon 2021 - - - - 2021 Gambia - - - - - - Georgia 2016 2019 - - - 2019 Ghana 2015 2019 2021 - - 2021 Grenada - - - - - - Guatemala 2023 - - - - - Guinea 2023 - - - - - Guinea-Bissau 2020 - - - - - Guyana - - - - - - Haití - - - - - - Honduras 2020 - - - - 2020 India 2016 2018 2021 - - - Indonesia 2016 2018 2021 - - - Iran (Islamic Republic of) - - - - - - Iraq - - - - - - Israel 2016 2023 - - - - Jamaica 2016 - - - - - Jordan 2017 2021 - - - - Kazakhstan - - - - - - Kenya - - - - - - Kiribati - - - - - - Kuwait 2019 - - - - - Kyrgyzstan 2022 - - - - 2022 34 Lao People's Democra- tic Republic 2020 - - - - - Lebanon 2015 2017 2019 2021 - - Lesotho 2021 - - - - - Liberia 2021 - - - - - Libya - - - - - - Madagascar - - - - - - Malawi 2022 - - - - - Malaysia 2016 2018 2020 2022 - - Maldives 2020 - - - - - Mali - - - - - - Marshall Islands - - - - - - Mauritania 2016 2021 - - - 2021 Mauritius 2021 - - - - 2021 Mexico 2015 2019 2022 - - 2022 Micronesia (Federated States of) 2023 - - - - - Mongolia 2017 - - - - 2017 Montenegro 2016 2019 2022 - - 2022 Morocco 2016 2019 2022 - - - Mozambique 2022 - - - - - Myanmar - - - - - - Namibia 2014 2016 2019 2021 - 2021 Nauru - - - - - - Nepal - - - - - - Nicaragua - - - - - - Niger 2022 - - - - 2023 Nigeria 2018 2021 - - - - 35 Niue - - - - - - North Macedonia 2015 2018 2021 - - 2021 Oman (Sultanate of) 2019 - - - - - Pakistan 2022 - - - - - Palau - - - - - - Panama 2019 2021 - - - 2021 Papua New Guinea 2019 2022 - - - 2022 Paraguay 2015 2018 2021 - - 2022 Peru 2014 2019 2023 - - 2019 Philippines - - - - - - Qatar - - - - - - Republic of Korea 2014 2017 2019 2023 - - Republic of Moldova 2016 2019 2021 - - 2021 Rwanda 2021 - - - - 2022 Saint Kitts and Nevis - - - - - - Saint Lucia 2021 - - - - 2021 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - - - - - - Samoa - - - - - - San Marino - - - - - - Sao Tome and Principe 2022 - - - - - Saudi Arabia 2018 - - - - - Senegal - - - - - Serbia 2016 - - - - - Seychelles - - - - - - Sierra Leone - - - - - - Singapore 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 - 36 South Sudan - - - - - - Sri Lanka - - - - - - State of Palestine - - - - - - Sudan - - - - - - Suriname 2022 - - - - - Syrian Arab Republic - - - - - - Tajikistan 2019 - - - - - Thailand 2015 2017 2020 2022 - - Timor-Leste - - - - - - Togo 2017 2021 - - - 2021 Tonga - - - - - - Trinidad and Tobago 2021 - - - - - Tunisia 2014 2016 2022 - - - Turkmenistan - - - - - - Tuvalu - - - - - - Uganda 2019 - - - - - United Arab Emirates - - - - - - United Republic of Tan- zania - - - - - - Uruguay 2015 2017 2019 2021 - 2022 Uzbekistan 2021 - - - - - Vanuatu 2021 - - - - - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) - - - - - - Viet Nam 2014 2017 2021 - - 2021 Yemen 2018 - - - - - Zambia 2020 - - - - - Zimbabwe 2021 - - - - - 37 APPENDIX III: METHODOLOGICAL CRITERIA AND VALUES FOR THE AFOLU SECTOR IN THE LATEST BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT BY NON-ANNEX I COUNTRIES. Country Inventory period Last In- ventory Year IPCC Gui- deline GWP Metodology Opening of gas emissions Total Coun- try Agriculture LULUCF AFOLU Unit Afghanistan 1990-2017 2017 2006 AR4 D-T1-T2-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 43.471,4 20.073,9 NE - Gg CO2eq Albania 2009-2016 2016 2006 AR2 T1 Total sector by gas 10.461,0 - - 3.688,0 Gg CO2eq Andorra 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010-2019 2019 2006 AR5 T1+ Total sector by gas 371,71 - - -129,1 Gg CO2eq Antigua and Barbuda 1990-2020 2015 2006 - T1-T2-T3 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory - - - - Gg CO2eq Argentina 1990-2018 2018 2006-2019 AR2 D-T1-T2-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 365.889,8 - - 143.194,5 Gg CO2eq Armenia 1990-2017 2017 2006 AR2 T1-T2-T3 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 10.153,5 - - 1.494,8 Gg CO2eq Azerbaijan 1990-2013 2013 2006 AR2 D-T1 Total sector by gas 53.889,0 - - 605,0 Gg CO2eq Bahamas 2001-2018 2018 2006 AR5 T1 Total sector by gas 6.264,4 - - 2993,3 Gg CO2eq Belize 2012, 2015, 2017 2017 2006 AR2 T1-T2-T3 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory -4.878,2 - - -6.683,2 Gg CO2eq Benin 1990-2015 2015 2006 AR4 D-T1-T2-CS Information in graphics 7.792,4 4.863,7 -3.959,8 - Gg CO2eq Bhutan 2016-2020 2020 2006 AR4 D-T1-T2-CS Total sector by gas -6.789,6 512,0 8.969,0 - Gg CO2eq 38 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1990, 2014-2018 2018 2006 AR2 T1+ Main categories only 25.339,0 1.890,9 -5.831,9 - Gg CO2eq Botswana 2015 2015 2006 AR2 D-T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 7.131,1 - - -2.803,0 Gg CO2eq Brazil 1990-2016 2016 1996-2006 AR2 T1-T2-T3 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 1.305.570,0 439.213,0 290.867,0 - Gg CO2eq Burkina Faso 1995-2015 2015 2006 AR2 D-T1-T2-T3-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 66.035,5 - - 59.832,8 Gg CO2eq Burundi 2005-2019 2019 2006 AR5 T1 Total sector by gas -11.219,0 2.057,0 - -13.277,0 Gg CO2eq Cambodia 1994-2016 2016 2006 AR4 T1 Total sector by gas 163.592,4 18.397,7 131.011,2 - Gg CO2eq Chile 1990-2020 2020 2006 AR4 T1+ Total sector by gas 55.824,5 11.237,7 -49.727,4 - Gg CO2eq China 1994-2005-2010- 2012-2014 2014 1996-2006 AR2 D-T1-T2-T3-CS Total sector by gas 11.186.000, 0 830.000,0 - 1.115.000,0 - Gg CO2eq Colombia 1990-2018 2018 2006-2019 AR5 T1+ Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 279.199,0 - - 155.290,0 Gg CO2eq Costa Rica 2005-2010-2012-2015 2015 2006 AR2 T1+ Total sector by gas 10.881,7 - - 179.41 Gg CO2eq Cote d'Ivoire 1990-2014 2014 2006 AR3 T1-T2 Information in graphics 50.356,4 - - 36.885,2 Gg CO2eq Cuba* 1990-2016 2016 2006 AR2 T1+ Total sector by gas 23.066,5 10.108,4 -27.146,2 - Kt CO2eq Democratic Re- public of the Congo 2000-2018 2018 2006 con in- clusión par- cial refina- mientos 2019 AR5 T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 718.318,6 5.492,8 -8.630,2 - Gg CO2eq Dominican Re- public 2010-2015 2015 2006 AR2 T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 24.634,2 4.753,6 -10.851,8 - Gg CO2eq Ecuador 1994-2018 2018 2006 AR4 T1-T2 Yes. 75.326,9 15.699,5 16.282,9 - Gg CO2eq 39 Opening by ca- tegory Egypt 2005-2015 2015 2006 AR2 T1 Total sector by gas 325.614,0 - - 48.390,0 Gg CO2eq El Salvador 2014 2014 2006 AR4 T1-T2-T3 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 20.394,9 - - 11.793,6 Gg CO2eq Eritrea 2000-2006-2010- 2015-2018 2018 2006 AR2 T1 Information in graphics 3.992,2 - - 2.985,2 Gg CO2eq Gabon 1994-2017 2017 2006 AR2 T1+ Yes. Opening by ca- tegory -103.085,0 797,0 -108.000,0 - Gg CO2eq Georgia 1990-2015 2015 2006 AR2 T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 13.707,0 3.271,0 -3.882,0 - Gg CO2eq Ghana* 1990-2019 2019 2006 AR4 T1+ Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 59,8 12,1 14,5 - Mt CO2eq Guatemala* 1990-2018 2018 2006 con in- clusión par- cial refina- mientos 2019 AR4 T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 62.058,6 6.552,9 30.804,0 - Kt CO2eq Guinea 1990-2019 2019 2006 AR2 T1 - 2.057,6 - - -1.645,1 Gg CO2eq Guinea-Bissau 2006-2013 2013 2006 AR5 T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 1.556,6 - - -453,8 Gg CO2eq Honduras 2005-2015 2015 2006 AR2 T1-T2 Information in graphics 8.753,1 - - -3.727,8 Gg CO2eq India 2000-2016 2016 1996-2006 AR2 T1+ Information in graphics 2.531.069,0 407.821,0 -307.820,0 - Gg CO2eq Indonesia 2000-2019 2019 2006 AR2 - Information in graphics 1.845.067,0 105.301,0 924.853,0 - Gg CO2eq Israel* 1996-2020 2020 1996-2006 - T2 Information in graphics 77.154,8 2.296,8 -260,2 - Mt CO2eq Jamaica 2006-2012 2012 2006 AR2 T1 Total sector by gas 20.205,0 - -1.626,0 - Gg CO2eq 40 Jordan 2016 2016 2006-2019 AR2 T1 Total sector by gas 31.063,3 - - 428,7 Gg CO2eq Kuwait 1994,2000,2016 2016 2006 AR2 T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 86.336,5 154.371,0 -13.190,0 - Gg CO2eq Kyrgyzstan 1990-2018 2018 2006 AR2 T1+ Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 6.917,0 5.196,3 -10.941,4 - Gg CO2eq Lao People's Democratic Re- public 2014 2014 2006 - T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 24.100,0 - - 18.793,4 Gg CO2eq Lebanon 1994-2018 2018 2006 AR5 T1+ Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 29.266,0 907,0 -3.194,4 - Gg CO2eq Lesotho 1994-2017 2017 2006 AR2 T1 - 5.660,4 - - 2.417,0 Gg CO2eq Liberia 2000,2015-2017 2017 2006 AR2 T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 5.990,7 208,4 3.805,7 - Gg CO2eq Malawi 2001-2017 2017 2006 AR2 T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 3.613,5 - - 1.205,0 Gg CO2eq Malaysia 1990-2019 2019 2006 AR4 T1+ Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 115.643,7 9.921,7 -214.714,5 - Gg CO2eq Maldives 2001-2015 2015 2006 AR2 T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 1.536,0 NE - - Gg CO2eq Mauritania 1990-2018 2018 2006 AR4 T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 9.944,6 - - 6.547,0 Gg CO2eq Mauritius 2000-2016 2016 2006 AR2 T1+ Main categories only 4881.36 - - -171,6 Gg CO2eq Mexico 1990-2019 2019 2006-2019 AR5 T1+ Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 534.688,6 140.807,2 -201.941,0 - Gg CO2eq Micronesia (Fe- derated States of) 2001-2018 2018 2006-2019 AR5 T1 Total sector by gas 174,2 28,4 - - Gg CO2eq 41 Mongolia 1990-2014 2014 2006 AR2 T1-T2-D-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 10.030,8 16.727,0 -24.451,9 - Gg CO2eq Montenegro 1990-2019 2019 2006 AR4 T1-D-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 1.119,3 - - -2.232,4 Gg CO2eq Morocco 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 2018 2006 AR4 T1 Total sector by gas 90.944,5 20.729,3 -1.745,6 - Gg CO2eq Mozambique 1990, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 2016 2006 AR2 T1-T2 - 55.498,0 1.882,0 337.221,0 - Gg CO2eq Namibia 1990-2016 2016 2006-2019 AR2 T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory -105.428,0 - - - 126.688,0 Gg CO2eq Niger 1990-2019 2019 2006-2019 AR4 T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 40.669,0 - - 33.836,6 Gg CO2eq Nigeria 2000-2017 2017 2006 AR5 T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 673.641,0 - - 389.790,0 Gg CO2eq North Macedo- nia 1990-2016 2016 2006 AR4 T1-T2-CS Total emissions by gas 8.020,6 - - -2.087,8 Gg CO2eq Oman (Sulta- nate of) 1994,2000,2015 2015 2006 AR5 T1 Total sector by gas 96.072,0 - - 1.466,0 Gg CO2eq Pakistan* 1994, 2008, 2012, 2015, 2018 2018 2006 - T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 489,9 - - 223,5 Mt CO2eq Panama* 1994-2017 2017 2006 AR5 D-T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory -9.758,3 3.463,2 -27.629,2 - Kt CO2eq Papua New Guinea* 2000-2017 2017 2006 AR2 T1-T2-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory -1.958,0 935,0 -12.725,0 - Kt CO2eq Paraguay* 1990-2017 2017 2006 AR2 D-T1-T2-T3 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 49.855,5 25.027,2 14.511,0 - Kt CO2eq 42 Peru 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 2019 2006-2019 AR5 T1-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 210.404,4 28.478,0 100.794,0 - Gg CO2eq Republic of Korea* 1990-2018 2018 1996-2006 AR2 D-T1-T2-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 686.348,2 21.190,5 -41.285,1 - Kt CO2eq Republic of Moldova* 1990-2019 2019 2006 AR4 D-T1-T2-CS Information in graphics 14.105,8 1.943,5 295,8 - Kt CO2eq Rwanda 2006-2018 2018 2006 AR2 T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 2.630,1 - - -793,3 Gg CO2eq Saint Lucia 2000, 2005, 2010, 2014-2018 2018 2006-2019 AR2 D-T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 509,0 27,0 -227,0 - Gg CO2eq Sao Tome and Principe 2012, 2016, 2018 2018 2006 AR2 D-T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory -303,5 24,4 -516,0 - Gg CO2eq Saudi Arabia 2012 2012 1996 - T1-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory - - - - Gg CO2eq Serbia 1990, 2010-2013 2013 2006 AR4 T1 Total emissions by gas 46.783,8 - - 6.621,0 Gg CO2eq Singapore 1994, 2000, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 2018 2006 AR5 D-T1-T2-T3-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 53.312,7 8,0 112,2 - Gg CO2eq Suriname 2000-2017 2017 2006-2019 AR2 T1-T2-CS Information in graphics - - - - Gg CO2eq Tajikistan 2004-2014 2014 2006 AR2 T1-T2 Total sector by gas 7.554,4 4.556,2 -1.576,6 - Gg CO2eq Thailand 2000-2019 2019 2006 AR4 D-T1-T2-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 280.728,3 56.766,3 -91.988,5 - Gg CO2eq Togo 1995-2018 2018 2006 AR2 T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 40.990,6 19.035,1 18.138,3 - Gg CO2eq Trinidad and Tobago 2006-2018 2018 2006 AR5 - Main categories only 41.598,9 - - -2.192,4 Gg CO2eq 43 Tunisia* 2010-2021 2021 2006 AR4 T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 35.366,0 - - -5.159,0 Kt CO2eq Uganda 2005-2015 2015 2006 AR5 T1 Main categories only 77.381,0 - - 66.829,0 Gg CO2eq Uruguay 1990, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016- 2019 2019 2006 AR2 T1-T2-T3 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 19.463,0 - - 11.101,0 Gg CO2eq Uzbekistan 1990-2017 2017 2006 AR4 D-T1-T2-CS Main categories only 180.575,3 33.652,3 -8.632,2 - Gg CO2eq Vanuatu 2010-2017 2017 2006 AR5 D-T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 600,2 399,4 - - Gg CO2eq Viet Nam* 2010, 2014, 2016 2016 2006-2019 AR5 T1-T2-T3 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 316.735,0 - - 44.069,7 Kt CO2eq Yemen 2012 2012 1996 AR2 T1 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 36.261,0 10.770,0 -1.540,0 - Gg CO2eq Zambia 1994, 2000, 2005, 2010-2016 2016 2006 - D-T1-T2 Yes. Opening by ca- tegory -9.508,5 - - -18.379,3 Gg CO2eq Zimbabwe 2000-2017 2017 2006 AR2 D-T1-T2-CS Yes. Opening by ca- tegory 37.786,6 - - 23.130,8 Gg CO2eq T1: Tier 1; T2: Tier 2; T3: Tier 3; CS: country-specific information. NE: not estimated for Activity Data and/or emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHGs which have not been esti- mated but for which a corresponding activity may occur within a Party. Empty cells (-) generally responds to difference on data opening reporting 44 Country A. Livestock B. Land C. Aggregate Sources and Non-CO2 Emissions Sources on Land D. Others A . E n te ri c F e rm e n ta ti o n B . M a n u re M a n a g e m e n t B .1 . F o re s t L a n d B .2 . C ro p L a n d B .3 . G ra s s la n d B .4 . W e tl a n d s B .5 . S e tt le m e n ts B .6 . O th e rs l a n d s C .1 . E m is s io n s f ro m B io m a s s B u rn in g (L a n d ) C .2 . E m is s io n s f ro m B io m a s s B u rn in g (A g ri c u lt u re ) C .3 . L im in g C .4 . U re a A p p li c a ti o n C .5 . D ir e c t N 2 O e m is s io n s f ro m m a n - a g e d s o il s C .6 . In d ir e c t N 2 O e m is s io n s f ro m m a n - a g e d s o il s C .7 . In d ir e c t N 2 O e m is s io n s f ro m m a - n u re m a n a g e m e n t C .8 . R ic e c u lt iv a ti o n C .9 . O th e rs D .1 . H a rv e s te d W o o d P ro d u c ts Afghanistan 10.273,2 2.188,6 - 5.487,0 - - - - - 21,6 - - - - - 2.040,