Key takeaway
The agriculture, forestry, and other land use sector is responsible for roughly 22 percent of annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, yet most corporate inventories under-report it. CDP added Q7.12 to Q7.14 to force disclosure of land sector activities and CO2 removals as separate lines, with a different methodological standard from regular Scope 1 reporting. This lesson explains what counts as a land sector activity, how technological removals are reported, and why the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard (LSRS) sits behind these questions.
What this cluster covers
| Question | What it asks |
|---|---|
| Q7.12 | Does your organization have significant land sector activities in operations or value chain? |
| Q7.13 | Do you account for and report technological CO2 removals or captured CO2 with geologic storage? |
| Q7.14 | Do you calculate GHG emissions for each agricultural commodity that is significant to your business? |
These questions are mandatory in the questionnaire. Saying "No" still requires a reasoned answer for it to score. Skipping the cluster forfeits points across multiple downstream questions.
Q7.12, what counts as a land sector activity
Land sector activities under CDP and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard include:
- Agricultural production (livestock, crops) within direct operations
- Forestry and forest management
- Land use change (deforestation, afforestation, peatland conversion)
- Wetland management
- Sourcing of agricultural commodities (palm oil, soy, beef, dairy, cocoa, coffee, paper) at scale that is material to the business
A food and beverage company sourcing 200,000 tonnes of palm oil annually has significant land sector activities even if it operates no farms. A manufacturer of paper packaging has them. A pharmaceutical company sourcing limited agricultural inputs typically does not.
A scoring-quality "Yes" answer triggers cascading questions on land use change emissions, removals from on-site sequestration, and methodology disclosure under LSRS. A scoring-quality "No" answer cites the materiality threshold applied and confirms it has been documented.
Q7.13, technological removals and CCS
Q7.13 asks specifically about technological CO2 removals (direct air capture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, mineralisation) and captured CO2 with geologic storage. This is a separate question because the methodologies are different from biogenic sequestration.
If you operate or contract for any of these:
- Disclose the volume captured (in tCO2)
- Disclose the storage type (geologic, mineralised, in-product)
- Disclose the permanence basis (engineered storage with monitoring vs natural reservoirs)
- Confirm the activities are not double-counted as offsets sold to others
The Leadership-tier signal here is verification by an independent body and a written non-double-counting attestation.
For most companies the answer is "No, we do not currently report technological removals." That answer scores at Disclosure tier when accompanied by a brief explanation.
Q7.14, agricultural commodity emissions
Q7.14 is sector-targeted at food, beverage, agriculture, paper, and packaging. It asks whether you calculate emissions for each significant agricultural commodity (palm, soy, beef, dairy, cocoa, coffee, timber, sugar, cotton).
A scoring-quality "Yes" answer:
- Lists each significant commodity by volume sourced
- Discloses the methodology used (LSRS, IPCC Tier 1/2/3, supplier-specific factors)
- Reports cradle-to-gate emissions per commodity in tCO2e
- Identifies the share allocated to land use change vs production emissions
- Discloses upstream traceability (deforestation-free certification share, GPS-level traceability share)
Worked example
Worked example for palm oil. "Annual sourcing: 180,000 tonnes refined palm oil. Methodology: LSRS-aligned, RSPO-certified portion uses RSPO life-cycle factors (1.95 tCO2e per tonne palm oil), non-certified portion uses regional defaults from FEFAC plus literature land use change factors (4.6 tCO2e per tonne). Cradle-to-gate emissions: 480,000 tCO2e total, of which 240,000 tCO2e attributable to land use change. Traceability: 87 percent traceable to mill, 41 percent traceable to plantation. Deforestation-free verification: 62 percent of volume."
This single paragraph unlocks scoring on Q7.14 plus feeds the Forests module (Q8.x cluster) on the same commodity.
How LSRS changes the math
If you adopt the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, certain emissions and removals previously reported under Scope 1 may shift category, and biogenic CO2 may be reported as a memo item rather than included in Scope 1+2. CDP allows this and asks you to report the change in Q7.10.1 under "Change in methodology" with a year-on-year reconciliation.
The first year of LSRS adoption typically produces a meaningful shift in headline emissions, both up (land use change emissions newly visible) and down (biogenic memo treatment). Communicate this in advance to investors who will see the change in your CDP letter and in your annual report.
For deeper grounding on the underlying methodology, see our TNFD and biodiversity course for the nature-related framing and the EUDR course for the deforestation-free regulatory baseline that increasingly drives these data flows.
Common mistakes
- Saying "No" to Q7.12 because the company operates no farms, while sourcing significant agricultural commodities.
- Reporting palm or soy at the commodity level only, not the per-tonne emissions intensity.
- Conflating removals (Q7.13) with offsets purchased. They are different categories.
- Including biogenic CO2 in Scope 1 without disclosing it as a memo item, distorting year-on-year comparison.
- Failing to flag LSRS adoption in Q7.10.1, leaving graders to interpret a methodology shift as performance change.