Reducing the impact of nitrogen might seem an easy win, but as Piet explains, it isn’t as straightforward as one might imagine. “If you simply stop using nitrogen fertilisers, your yield plummets by 50-70%. And if it goes too low, your product footprint will actually go up, as you still have fixed carbon costs (per hectare) in terms of land-use change and cost of field establishment, etc. The challenge is to get your application of nitrogen fertilisers just right. For example, not every tree in a field performs equally well. It sounds counter-intuitive, but if you apply a fertiliser uniformly, you’re basically giving the high-performing trees too little fertiliser and the low performers too much. And you can’t avoid emissions by simply switching from synthetic to organic fertilisers either. Because while you avoid energy emissions from processing, the way compost is produced can also emit a lot of methane, a potent GHG, and you will still get field emissions from compost in the form of nitrous oxides. So as you can see, it quickly becomes very complex — technically and operationally for the farmer, and for us in terms of implications for the business, around for example supply chain costs or the cost/benefits of switching fertilisers.” Yield improvement offers real opportunities to reduce GHGs, Piet says, but is also far from straightforward. “A large proportion of tropical crops like coffee and cocoa are produced by smallholders, who tend to have low yields. Through more effective pruning, weeding, disease control, etc you can push up that yield. Even if the farmer now uses slightly more nitrogen fertilisers, their carbon footprint (based on yield per unit product, not per hectare) will still shrink. What’s more, farmers who have the means to invest in their farms thanks to higher yields and income, can implement regenerative agricultural practices and are less likely to encroach into protected areas to expand their farms.”