A limited understanding of the potential to reduce emissions and a lack of climate incentives hinder progress toward mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from beef production. This study explored the GHG mitigation potential in South America by evaluating nearly 30 beef cattle production systems across five key beef-producing countries (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay, and Uruguay). The study outlined a low-emission beef roadmap for this major beef producing region. Data from this study indicate that the current business-as-usual trajectory of improvements in South America's beef cattle production is insufficient to reduce GHG emissions at a pace that aligns with the urgency of climate crisis. Results from this study show that scaling up existing practices -such as improved forages, rotational grazing, and feed supplementation- to match the performance of the region's lowest-emission systems at 20thpercentile could deliver significant results. Emission intensities could decrease by 33-50% compared to the projected 2050 regional average (35 tons carbon dioxide equivalent/ton of carcass weight). This would flatten the emissions curve, cutting total emissions by 20-40% while simultaneously increasing beef production by 43%. With annual methane (CH4) emission reductions by 1.5%, the warming effect could decrease by 70-90%, offering a transformative pathway to lower GHG emissions from beef production. This emissions trajectory offers a feasible path toward net-zero warming from beef production, primarily through sustained reductions in CH4 emissions intensity and absolute emissions as systems become more production efficient. These findings highlight the need and an opportunity for a drastic reduction in emissions from beef cattle production and can foster collaboration among conservation, industry, and finance stakeholders towards a common climate-oriented beef production agenda.

Agricultural practices that both support climate change mitigation and facilitate adaptation to a changing climate are critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring food security. This need has led to many claims regarding the potential for a variety of agricultural practices to achieve synergies between mitigation and adaptation in agriculture. However, the evidence for climate change mitigation and adaptation synergies in agriculture remains mixed. To evaluate such claims, we examined the evidence for these synergies by conducting a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature that make claims about outcomes for both climate change adaptation and mitigation in agriculture. Based on 87 articles identified, we show that synergistic outcomes are claimed more frequently than tradeoffs for all practices, yet the evidence was stronger for mixed and conflicting outcomes than for synergies. Indeed, claims of synergistic outcomes may be overstated, because these publications more often relied on secondary data rather than empirically evaluating adaptation and mitigation outcomes. We also show important gaps in the consideration and assessment of climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives and outcomes. This review highlights the critical need for more robust research, evidence, and evaluation of the adaptation and mitigation outcomes of agricultural practices, and the need to clarify the contexts of such results, in order to effectively support policies and practices that aim to promote synergistic outcomes and avoid conflicting outcomes.

Alternative protein sources for human food, as well as for terrestrial and aquatic animal feed, are increasingly commercially available. These products have considerable potential for sustainably delivering protein for food and feed and could lead to significant reductions in climate and land use impacts. Alternative protein sources include meat analogs, insects, certain woody plants, and algae including seaweed. We briefly review recent work on their nutritional, environmental, technological, and socioeconomic impacts. We outline possible trade-offs at scale and consider the ways in which the alternative protein sector may develop in the next decades.

To meet climate targets, a shift to low-emission diets that also support health and sustainability is necessary. A high-impact target is to reduce red meat consumption by 50 percent by 2030 in high- and middle-income countries based on the 2019 EAT-Lancet diet. Actions to lessen animal-based meat consumption could cut dietary emissions by 3–8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (Table 9.1). Scaling up plant-based meat will require viable products, low costs, effective public policy to catalyse change, and strong markets. The priority actions are to facilitate consumer behavioural change for large segments of populations, promote policy targets and actions for reduced-meat diets in high- and middle-income countries, use public-private finance to improve alternative meat product nutrition and sustainability, and enhance affordable technology and business options.

As countries prioritize climate action under the Paris Agreement, determining the overlap in agricultural areas requiring both adaptation and mitigation (A&M) interventions could lead to more efficient use of resources and support for farmers. Here, we identify global priorities for A&M by evaluating global datasets on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate hazards related to agriculture. We show that joint A&M hotspots cover <23% of global agricultural emissions and include 52% of the areas with significant climate hazards. The major portion of the joint area is croplands (ranging from 213 to 364 Mha), followed by pastures (3–74 Mha), and is concentrated in countries with limited ability to investment in adaptation actions. The most substantial A&M hotspots are situated across South Asia, with smaller areas in South East Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We highlight three findings from this analysis. First, most emissions and climate hazards do not occur in the same agricultural areas, suggesting the need for different strategies to address adaptation and mitigation separately in these areas. Second, in the areas where emissions and climate hazards do overlap, coordinated climate interventions that address emission reductions and adaptation at the same time would be a more effective use of scarce climate action investments. Third, A&M hotspots span national borders, emphasizing the importance of setting priorities and implementing action at regional and international scales. While our analysis highlights that focusing on adaptation and mitigation actions in the agricultural landscapes where they are most needed could help make the best use of climate finance, we recognize the pragmatic and justice-related implications may limit the extent of such prioritization. Balancing these considerations is essential for effective climate finance allocation and equitable climate action outcomes.

Tracking agriculture and land-use greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is necessary to inform global climate policy, yet UNFCCC country-reported data and three independent global databases show inconsistent estimates of countries' emissions. Data for developing countries are particularly inconsistent, yet also collectively the largest source of emissions. Here, we provide transparency about available country-level emissions data for agriculture and related land use and characterize their data quality and consistency to enable better understanding of available data and tracking of climate change mitigation. We call for increased consistency in official national agricultural GHG inventory data and transparency about the differences among scientific data sources to enable decision makers to track progress, set priorities and manage emissions.

A critical question is whether agroecology can promote climate change mitigation and adaptation outcomes without compromising food security. We assessed the outcomes of smallholder agricultural systems and practices in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) against 35 mitigation, adaptation, and yield indicators by reviewing 50 articles with 77 cases of agroecological treatments relative to a baseline of conventional practices. Crop yields were higher for 63% of cases reporting yields. Crop diversity, income diversity, net income, reduced income variability, nutrient regulation, and reduced pest infestation, indicators of adaptative capacity, were associated with 70% or more of cases. Limited information on climate change mitigation, such as greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration impacts, was available. Overall, the evidence indicates that use of organic nutrient sources, diversifying systems with legumes and integrated pest management lead to climate change adaptation in multiple contexts. Landscape mosaics, biological control (e.g., enhancement of beneficial organisms) and field sanitation measures do not yet have sufficient evidence based on this review. Widespread adoption of agroecological practices and system transformations shows promise to contribute to climate change services and food security in LMICs. Gaps in adaptation and mitigation strategies and areas for policy and research interventions are finally discussed.

AbstractNutrient inputs play a critical role in raising crops and livestock for food security, human nutrition and other uses in the bioeconomy. Their production and management must change so as to nourish crops, reduce harmful environmental impacts caused by nutrient losses and contribute to the restoration of soil health more effectively. A new paradigm for plant nutrition follows a food system approach in which multiple socioeconomic, environmental and health objectives must be achieved. The coming 10–20 years will be most critical for making the transition to a global food system in which all stakeholders look at food and nutrients in a holistic manner, including in regard to their hidden environmental, health and socioeconomic costs. Consumers, as well as governments and other stakeholders, need to support such a transformation, because farmers and the industry supporting them will not be able to implement all of the required actions alone. The outcome of this transformation will be a new societal plant nutrition optimum, rather than a purely economic optimum. The new nutrient economy will become an integral component of a low-carbon emission, environment-friendly and circular economy, supporting the food and nutrition requirements of a rising global population and improving the income and livelihood of farmers worldwide.

Plant-based animal product alternatives are increasingly promoted to achieve more sustainable diets. Here, we use a global economic land use model to assess the food system-wide impacts of a global dietary shift towards these alternatives. We find a substantial reduction in the global environmental impacts by 2050 if globally 50% of the main animal products (pork, chicken, beef and milk) are substituted-net reduction of forest and natural land is almost fully halted and agriculture and land use GHG emissions decline by 31% in 2050 compared to 2020. If spared agricultural land within forest ecosystems is restored to forest, climate benefits could double, reaching 92% of the previously estimated land sector mitigation potential. Furthermore, the restored area could contribute to 13-25% of the estimated global land restoration needs under target 2 from the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework by 2030, and future declines in ecosystem integrity by 2050 would be more than halved. The distribution of these impacts varies across regions-the main impacts on agricultural input use are in China and on environmental outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa and South America. While beef replacement provides the largest impacts, substituting multiple products is synergistic.

AbstractThis chapter reviews evidence of the impacts of agroecological farming practices on climate adaptation and mitigation. Farm diversification has the strongest evidence for its impacts on climate change adaptation. The evidence for agroecology’s impact on mitigation in LMICs is modest and emphasises carbon sequestration in soil and biomass. Agroforestry has the strongest body of evidence for impacts on mitigation. Locally relevant solutions produced through participatory processes and the co-creation of knowledge with farmers has improved climate change adaptation and mitigation. Knowledge gaps were found in regard to agricultural climate change mitigation, resilience to extreme weather, and agroecology approaches involving livestock, landscape redesign and multi-scalar analysis. There is a need to assess the performance of agricultural development using an outcome-based approach based on agroecological principles and climate change adaptation and mitigation indicators in order to guide donor and national investment. Moreover, direct investment and the scaling of practices for which the current evidence is strongest are needed. These include: (1) agricultural diversification, agroforestry and local adaptation; (2) increase action around resilience to extreme weather and climate change mitigation outcomes in LMICs and build the capacity of policymakers, scientists and institutions from the global South to work on these issues; and (3) compare the cost-effectiveness and outcomes of agroecology approaches with other agricultural development interventions at multiple scales, including the valuation of environmental and social benefits to better evaluate alternative approaches to sustainable agriculture.

Countries often lack methods for rapidly, but robustly determining greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation actions and their impacts comprehensively in the land use sector to support commitments to the Paris Agreement. We present rapid assessment methods based on easily available spatial data and adoption costs for mitigation related to crops, livestock and forestry to identify priority locations and actions. Applying the methods for the case of Mexico, we found a national mitigation potential of 87.88 million tons (Mt) CO2eq yr−1, comprising 7.91, 7.66 and 72.31 Mt CO2eq yr−1 from crops, livestock and forestry/agro-forestry, respectively. At the state level, mitigation potentials were highest in Chiapas (13 Mt CO2eq) followed by Campeche (8 Mt CO2eq). Eleven states had a land use mitigation potential between 2.5 to 6.5 Mt CO2eq, while other states had mitigation potentials of less than 2 Mt CO2eq. Mitigation options for crops and livestock could reduce 60% and 6% of the respective emissions. Mitigation options for forestry could reduce emissions by half. If properly implemented, mitigation potentials on cropland can be realized with net benefits, compared to livestock and forestry options, which involve net costs. The method supports science-based priority setting of mitigation actions by location and subsector and should help inform future policy and implementation of countries’ nationally determined contributions.

Food systems (FSs) emit ~ 20 GtCO 2 e/y (~ 35% of global greenhouse gas emissions). This level tends to raise given the expected increases in food demands, which may threaten global climate targets. Through a rapid assessment, evaluating 60+ scenarios based on existing low-emission and carbon sequestration practices, we estimate that intensifying FSs could reduce its emissions from 21.4 to − 2.0 GtCO 2 e/y and address increasing food demands without relying on carbon offsets (e.g., related to afforestation and reforestation programs). However, given historical trends and regional contexts, a more diverse portfolio of practices, including diet shifts and new-horizon technologies, will be needed to increase the feasibility of achieving net-zero FSs. One likely pathway consists of implementing practices that shift food production to the 30th-percentile of least emission-intensive FSs (~ 45% emissions reduction), sequester carbon at 50% of its potential (~ 5 GtCO 2 e/y) and adopt diet shifts and new-horizon technologies (~ 6 GtCO 2 e/y). For a successful transition to happen, the global FSs would, in the next decade (2020s), need to implement cost-effective mitigation practices and technologies, supported by improvements in countries’ governance and technical assistance, innovative financial mechanisms and research focused on making affordable technologies in the following two decades (2030–2050). This work provides options and a vision to guide global FSs to achieving net-zero by 2050.

Global agricultural development programs aim to support smallholder farmers and farming communities by strengthening sustainable and resilient food production systems - which can also promote climate change mitigation as a co-benefit by reducing the emissions and enhancing removals of greenhouse gases (GHG). This study presents estimated GHG emissions reductions of almost 100 agricultural development projects over 51 low-and middle-income countries supported by the Inter-national Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), USAID-Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO, previously DfID). Together, these projects promoted a net GHG emissions reduction of 6.5 MtCO2e per year. The forest management and promotion of improved agroforestry systems in the project areas contributed the most to the total mitigation co-benefits of the investment portfolios (-3.9 MtCO2e/y). Improved crop management with minimum tillage practices, residue incorporation, water management in paddy rice, and the use of organic fertilizers also made a large contribution to the GHG emissions reduction (-1.5 MtCO2e/y). Grass and pasture land management across the selected projects account for a net emission reduction of 0.2 MtCO2e/y. The implementation of improved agricultural practices in combination proves more effective for improving productivity and generating mitigation co-benefits than used in isolation. However, the aggregate impacts of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration should be interpreted carefully, which quickly can be lost quick. The in-terventions promoted by the global agricultural development programs have shown immense potential in reducing net GHG emissions or emission intensity in agriculture and allied sectors. For moving forward to achieve the net-zero and 1.5 C goals including food security, the global agriculture development programs need to prioritize working on agriculture policy development and implementation so that agriculture expansion does not continue to drive land-use change. This needs to move from the traditional agriculture development programs to transformational changes.

The agricultural sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in Ethiopia, as it is the basis of the economy and the primary source of employment. This study investigated the implementation of mitigation and adaptation practices in smallholder farms in Ethiopia, estimated GHG emissions associated with mitigation practices, and identified potential mitigation options and barriers and enabling factors for implementation. Twenty-five smallholder farmers were selected by a local development agency and interviewed in the field about their land use and land management practices and the Mitigation Options Tool (MOT) was used to estimate GHG emissions, to identify mitigation options and co-benefits, and as a platform for promoting learning and knowledge exchange across different types of stakeholders. All farmers interviewed in the field acknowledged changes in the climate, but only some were implementing adaptation practices to cope with such changes, namely, crop rotations, planting new crop types, and the early sowing of crops. Fewer mitigation practices were implemented, namely reduced tillage and application of manure in cereal crops and potatoes. These practices were mainly implemented because of their benefits for soil conservation (e.g. fertility, soil water holding capacity, yield stabilization, erosion avoidance) rather than for mitigation (carbon sequestration) purposes. Greenhouse gas emissions from the application of synthetic fertilizer to crops, and from livestock production varied widely across farmers depending on the amount of fertilizer applied and the number and type of livestock raised. Tenancy rights and extension services were identified as potential enablers of the adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation practices by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia, and competing uses for straw was a potential barrier for the incorporation of residues in the soil. Barriers and enabling factors should be assessed thoroughly through further engagement with farmers as well as data on the amount of organic matter added to the soil, as these practices have co-benefits in terms of soil conservation, which are especially relevant for climate change adaptation in semi-dry climates. The MOT could be used in the future as a facilitator for knowledge exchange between researchers and practitioners in Ethiopia, and in other developing countries where data availability is low, to support the identification of effective climate change mitigation and adaptation actions. Key policy insights Climate change mitigation practices in agriculture can provide co-benefits for adaptation and food security, including the stabilization of crop yields, especially in semi-dry climates; more evidence about these co-benefits is needed. The systematic collection of data on manure and crop residues should be supported as a priority as well as the identification of implementation barriers for mitigation and adaptation practices. Smallholder farmers need to be engaged throughout any assessment of climate change mitigation potential to raise awareness, identify co-benefits of possible actions, and to identify and address barriers for implementation. Tenancy rights and extension services are potential enabling factors for the adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. In developing countries, user-friendly tools such as the MOT can promote learning and knowledge exchange across diverse stakeholder groups about the impact of land use and management options on climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Soil carbon is the major active pool of terrestrial carbon, and as such, soil organic carbon (SOC) targets, policies and measures will be pivotal to achieving global climate targets. SOC sequestration may reduce the net annual greenhouse gas emissions from Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use by between 3% and 71%, while simultaneously supporting various ecosystem services. Accurate SOC accounting and monitoring, however, is constrained by various technical challenges related to indicators, rates of SOC change, measuring the impact of management practices on SOC, and the long-term persistence of sequestered SOC. We assessed countries’ pledges to the Paris Agreement for SOC in agriculture to better understand the level, transparency, and specificity of commitments. Reviewing 184 countries’ initial Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), we considered whether SOC was included, what was pledged, the level of ambition promised and the specificity of mitigation targets. Twenty-eight countries referred to SOC in their NDCs, citing quantified or unquantified mitigation targets, national policies or programs, and actions and measures to be implemented in agricultural lands (14), peatlands (6) or wetlands (14). Countries’ reasons for not including SOC in NDCs included the need to prioritize goals of sustainable development and food security above climate mitigation, a lack of incentives for farmers to improve management practices, and the difficulty of accurately monitoring changes in SOC. Including SOC targets in NDCs can improve NDCs’ comprehensiveness and transparency to track and compare policy progress across NDCs; it can also leverage SOC-related climate finance, technical support, and capacity building.Key policy insights Many NDCs specify practices known to have the potential to achieve SOC sequestration or protection without explicitly mentioning SOC. The SOC-related mitigation potential of these practices can be quantified in future NDCs.NDCs are not presently a good indicator of countries’ interest or commitment to SOC action at national level. To improve this, countries with existing SOC policies, programs, and actions can specify their SOC-related commitments in future NDCs.Increased collaboration between countries with experience managing SOC and countries needing support to develop SOC-related targets, policies, measures and incentives for land users and farmers would facilitate the provision of such needed support.To increase country commitments and attention to managing SOC, there is a need for improved SOC measurement and monitoring, for better evidence on the impacts of management practices on SOC, and for incentives for farmers to change practices and overcome barriers.

Agroecology is increasingly seen as being able, or even necessary, to transform food systems (HLPE 2019). The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) commissioned this rapid evidence-based review to assess the quality and strength of evidence regarding (i) the impact of agroecological approaches on climate change mitigation and adaptation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and (ii) the programming approaches and conditions supporting large-scale transitions to agroecology and transitions. The review also aims to identify knowledge gaps critical to understand and inform future public and private investment in research, development, and deployment of agroecological approaches. The focus here is on the science of agroecology at the field and landscape level, not on social movement, value chain or business aspects. We use the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 10 elements of agroecology with the Gliessman (2016) framework to identify agroecology practices (transition level 2) and agroecology systems (transition level 3). To assess evidence related to agroecology's climate change outcomes we conducted a systematic literature review of i) synthesis papers and ii) primary empirical studies related to nutrient and pest and disease management. For the latter we documented the presence of evidence for climate change outcome indicators, but not the magnitude or direction of the change. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives from 12 organisations supporting or implementing on-the-ground agricultural development programmes to better understand the feasibility of scaling out agroecology.