Food systems are a major contributor to exceeding planetary boundaries1-3 and poor quality diets are a key mortality risk globally4. Projected population and income growth could exacerbate these challenges5. In response, there are calls for transformation towards healthy and sustainable food systems6-8. However, the scale and distribution of the impacts of this transformation on agriculture are underexplored. Here we show that, by 2050, the transformation of food systems towards healthy diets (adoption of the EAT-Lancet reference diet), improved productivity and halving of food waste results in a fundamental restructuring of global agriculture, aspects of which break with historical trends. Scenario simulations using a multimodel ensemble of ten global economic models show a 6% median decrease in agricultural land (+1% to -26%) compared with 2020 levels. By 2050, agricultural production would be 17% lower than business-as-usual projections (-2% to -32%) and, economically, the value of this production is US$1.6 trillion (26%) lower (+8% to -58%). Within this, the value of livestock production would be substantially lower than current 2050 projections (-49% to -83%), while vegetable, fruit, nut and legume production value would increase by 23% (-33% to +106%). Results are dependent on the assumed policies to achieve the transformation scenario. We highlight a more active role for food policy to consider the benefits of such a transformation (improved population health and reduced environmental pressures) and navigate the political economy of its impacts.

Although agriculture is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, the sector remains outside the scope of greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing policies in the EU. To align the future food system with the transition to net-zero emissions, two key questions arise: To what extent can tax policies help achieve this transition in a fair and effective way? And, would it be preferable to levy a GHG tax on the production or the consumption side? We employ an EU agro-economic model to compare supply and demand-side GHG taxes, quantifying their environmental impact as well as their effects on the EU competitiveness. We find that supply-side pricing in agriculture exhibits leakage rates of over 40 % and leaves EU producers at a competitive disadvantage; on the other hand, demand-side measures level the playing field in the Single Market and generate positive leakage as they boost the exports of (greener) EU producers. However, increased exports from the EU imply that emission reduction is rather limited domestically. Focussing on four countries - Spain, France, Romania, and Poland - we explore the distributional impacts of demand-side pricing measures using household-level microsimulation. We show that, when demand is kept constant, these reforms are regressive without complementary measures. Designing a VAT reform as a Feebate and equal-per-capita revenue recycling address vertical equity concerns and produce welfare gains for the majority of the population, while the top 20-30 % of meat consumers experience welfare losses. Overall, findings suggest that price-based measures can help align agriculture with climate goals, while trade and distributional aspects should be reflected in policy design to ensure an effective and equitable transition.

Extreme weather events are occurrences of unusually severe weather or climate conditions that can devastate local communities, agriculture and natural ecosystems. Due to climate change, these extreme events are becoming increasingly more likely, lasting longer, and more severe in impact. In this paper, we illustrate the potential effects of concurrent and recurrent extreme weather events on EU agricultural commodity markets and, in particular, on production and trade. A combination of concurrent and recurrent events is expected to have a negative and compounding effect on domestic food supply and trade, making EU agricultural markets less resilient. A set of scenarios based on record low yields show how EU production could be drastically affected compared to a business-as-usual situation. Market disruptions would be potentially larger for commodities in which the EU has a strong net exporter position, such as wheat. In the absence of extremes in non-EU regions, trade reveals as a key element in buffering the adverse impacts of extreme events in the EU.

This article explores the impact of extreme weather on food availability and how yield gap reductions in developing countries could make them less vulnerable to the imported effects of extreme weather shocks. Our extreme weather scenario results show that simultaneous weather-related shocks to crop yields in main exporting countries could lead to substantial increases in world food prices, threatening food security in countries strongly reliant on food imports. Maize and wheat prices increase by 40% and 50% due to extreme weather, increasing food expenditure in import-dependent countries (by up to 5%). Countering this effect, closing yield gaps in developing countries would substantially lower international prices and food expenditures, especially in developing countries. If the yield gap is reduced by 20% relative to economic potential over a 6-year period (yield gap scenario), maize and world prices decrease by 20% and 15%, decreasing food expenditure per capita in import-dependent countries. Finally, a combined scenario shows that the yield improvements only partially offset the impact of imported shocks on import-dependent countries, and these effects vary by country, depending on their production capability and their net-trade position. World maize and wheat prices increase by only 9% and 26% and still raise food expenditure in import-dependent countries.

While countries have agreed in the Paris-agreement on common rules to report greenhouse gas emissions, the design of domestic climate policy regimes remains in the national domain. This may cause different carbon prices for climate gasses across countries, between a country's emission sectors, and within the same sector. Our focus is on methane, which is a major emitter from agriculture, but also linked to livestock farming which is a core activity in agriculture worldwide. We analyse the potential effects of domestic carbon pricing regimes for agriculture in a non-cooperative game theoretic setting using a global agricultural sector model. Our results indicate no 'race to the bottom' to apply carbon pricing regimes that result in lowest implicit carbon prices for methane. Enforcing a uniform regime can reduce additional global warming with up to 0.02 degrees C, but runs the risk of agreeing to lower emission cuts than a nationally determined choice would suggest.

BACKGROUND:Current food systems leave one in ten individuals at risk of hunger while driving unsustainable environmental impacts. Inaction risks further exacerbating negative impacts on both human and planetary health. These challenges emerge from complex system interactions, requiring approaches that engage with this complexity and consider how transformation measures interact across food systems. We aimed to quantify the magnitude and uncertainty of the impacts of key food systems transformation measures both individually and in a bundle using an ensemble of global economic models. METHODS:In this global multimodel assessment, we applied an ensemble of ten state-of-the-art global economic models to evaluate the potential of four key measures in transforming food systems: increasing agricultural productivity, halving food loss and waste, shifting towards healthier diets, and economy-wide climate mitigation policies aligned with limiting warming to 1·5°C. The scenarios used a middle-of-the-road shared socioeconomic pathway for population and gross domestic product growth, climate impact data from Jägermeyr and colleagues, Thornton and colleagues, and Nelson and colleagues, and dietary targets based on the EAT-Lancet healthy reference diet, with model simulations conducted from 2020 to 2050. We then assessed the effect of these measures in isolation and in combination in a bundled scenario. To further understand the interactions between these measures, we conducted a decomposition analysis that distinguishes between the individual effects of a measure (effect when implemented alone), total effects (its contribution within the bundle), and interaction effects (the difference between total and individual effects). This approach aimed to show complementarities and trade-offs that emerge when multiple measures are implemented simultaneously. FINDINGS:Our analysis showed that individual measures in isolation are insufficient to achieve high-level environmental objectives and might generate unintended consequences. In contrast, bundling measures produces co-benefits: avoiding 50% of projected agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and almost 20% of anticipated land conversion, while moderating food price increases associated with ambitious climate change mitigation policies. Our decomposition analysis further shows that measures can have varying effects across different dimensions. Although dietary shifts and climate mitigation policies are the largest drivers of environmental benefits (each contributing to a median decline of >10 percentage points in non-CO2 emissions and 5 percentage points in agricultural land use globally), productivity improvements and reducing food loss and waste play essential roles in moderating price increases (each contributing to a median decline of >5 percentage points in average prices). INTERPRETATION:This study highlights the importance of implementing coordinated approaches to food system transformation and climate change mitigation rather than relying on isolated interventions. Comprehensive transformation requires understanding how supply-side and demand-side changes can interact with climate mitigation policies, enabling policy makers to design intervention packages that maximise benefits while minimising trade-offs across environmental, economic, and social dimensions. FUNDING:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability; Environment Research and Technology Development Fund; the Asahi Glass Foundation; CGIAR Initiative on Foresight; the CGIAR Science Program on Policy Innovations; US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; and the ClimateWorks Foundation, European Union.

Coherence in policy approaches across countries is crucial for achieving common GHG emission reduction goals at lower costs. Agro-economic models like Aglink-Cosimo, including global fertiliser markets, are useful for analyzing the anticipated effects of GHG reduction policies on food commodity markets. These policies can significantly affect domestic industry competitiveness, either positively or negatively. Such assessment tools can enhance evidence-based policy discussions and formation. We include in the baseline a EU ETS carbon price on fertiliser production in the EU as of 2026, without free allowances at 100 USD/tonne of CO2-eq emitted. Carbon pricing is assumed to be applied by the EU, Canada and the USA to fertiliser production from 2026 onwards.The results of the analysis presented in this article indicate that a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) significantly impacts fertiliser trade. A unilateral CBAM tariff affects EU fertiliser trade more than a common CBAM tariff adopted by a coalition of countries. These effects depend heavily on the volume of bilateral trade within club countries. Fertiliser markets influence commodity production and prices modestly due to the price inelasticity of fertiliser demand by farmers and the buffering role of trade in response to price shocks. In terms of GHG emissions, a climate club scenario results in lower total world emissions compared to a unilateral CBAM scenario. La coh & eacute;rence entre pays des approches pour l'action publique est essentielle pour atteindre des objectifs communs de r & eacute;duction des & eacute;missions de gaz & agrave; effet de serre (GES) & agrave; moindre co & ucirc;t. Les mod & egrave;les agro & eacute;conomiques comme Aglink-Cosimo, qui comprennent les march & eacute;s mondiaux des engrais, sont utiles pour analyser les effets anticip & eacute;s des politiques de r & eacute;duction des GES sur les march & eacute;s des produits alimentaires. Ces politiques peuvent affecter de mani & egrave;re significative la comp & eacute;titivit & eacute; de l'industrie nationale, de mani & egrave;re positive ou n & eacute;gative. De tels outils d'& eacute;valuation peuvent am & eacute;liorer les discussions et la formulation de politiques fond & eacute;es sur des donn & eacute;es probantes. Dans le sc & eacute;nario de r & eacute;f & eacute;rence, nous incluons & agrave; partir de 2026 un prix du carbone du syst & egrave;me communautaire d'& eacute;change de quotas d'& eacute;mission (SCEQE) sur la production d'engrais dans l'Union europ & eacute;enne (UE) & agrave; 100 USD/tonne d'& eacute;quivalent CO2 & eacute;mis, sans quotas gratuits. L'UE, le Canada et les & Eacute;tats-Unis sont suppos & eacute;s appliquer la tarification du carbone & agrave; la production d'engrais par & agrave; partir de 2026.Les r & eacute;sultats de l'analyse pr & eacute;sent & eacute;e dans cet article indiquent que le m & eacute;canisme d'ajustement carbone aux fronti & egrave;res (MACF) a un impact significatif sur le commerce des engrais. Un tarif MACF unilat & eacute;ral affecte davantage le commerce des engrais de l'UE qu'un tarif MACF commun adopt & eacute; par une coalition de pays. Ces effets d & eacute;pendent fortement du volume des & eacute;changes bilat & eacute;raux au sein des pays membres du club. Les march & eacute;s des engrais influencent mod & eacute;r & eacute;ment la production et les prix des mati & egrave;res premi & egrave;res en raison de l'in & eacute;lasticit & eacute; de la demande d'engrais par les agriculteurs et du r & ocirc;le tampon du commerce en r & eacute;ponse aux chocs de prix. En termes d'& eacute;missions de GES, un sc & eacute;nario de club climatique se traduit par des & eacute;missions mondiales totales inf & eacute;rieures & agrave; celles d'un sc & eacute;nario de MACF unilat & eacute;ral. Die Abstimmung politischer Ans & auml;tze zwischen den L & auml;ndern ist entscheidend f & uuml;r das Erreichen gemeinsamer Treibhausgasminderungsziele unter Geringhaltung der Kosten. Agrar & ouml;konomische Modelle wie Aglink-Cosimo, die auch die globalen D & uuml;ngemittelm & auml;rkte abbilden, sind n & uuml;tzlich f & uuml;r die Analyse der zu erwartenden Auswirkungen von Ma ss nahmen zur Treibhausgasminderung auf die Lebensmittelm & auml;rkte. Diese Ma ss nahmen k & ouml;nnen die Wettbewerbsf & auml;higkeit der heimischen Industrie erheblich beeinflussen: entweder positiv oder negativ. Solche Bewertungsinstrumente k & ouml;nnen faktenbasierte politische Diskussionen ansto ss en und die Politikgestaltung verbessern. Wir gehen von einem EU-ETS-Kohlenstoffpreis f & uuml;r die D & uuml;ngemittelproduktion in der EU ab 2026 aus, ohne kostenlose Zertifikate in H & ouml;he von 100 USD/Tonne emittiertem CO2-& Auml;q. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass die EU, Kanada und die USA ab 2026 eine Kohlenstoffbepreisung auf die D & uuml;ngemittelproduktion anwenden werden.Die Ergebnisse der in diesem Artikel vorgestellten Analyse zeigen, dass das CO2-Grenzausgleichssystem (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism - CBAM) erhebliche Auswirkungen auf den D & uuml;ngemittelhandel hat. Ein einseitiger CBAM-Zoll wirkt sich st & auml;rker auf den EU-D & uuml;ngemittelhandel aus als ein gemeinsamer CBAM-Zoll, der von einer Koalition von L & auml;ndern beschlossen wird. Diese Auswirkungen h & auml;ngen stark vom Volumen des bilateralen Handels innerhalb der Clubl & auml;nder ab. Die D & uuml;ngerm & auml;rkte beeinflussen die Rohstoffproduktion und die Preise nur geringf & uuml;gig, da die D & uuml;ngernachfrage in der Landwirtschaft preisunelastisch ist und der Handel als Puffer bei Preisschocks dient. In Bezug auf die Treibhausgasemissionen f & uuml;hrt das Szenario des Klimaclubs im Vergleich zu einem einseitigen CBAM-Szenario zu niedrigeren Gesamtemissionen weltweit.

As one of the world's largest players in global trade, the EU pursues an open, sustainable and assertive trade strategy. The recent conclusions and ongoing negotiations of 10 European Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Australia, Chile, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Mercosur bloc (comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand are expected to diversify the EU's agri-food trade and enhance the resilience of its food supply chain. This resilience hinges on diversifying import sources and market outlets, which can be achieved through a robust trade policy that ensures access to a sufficient supply of affordable food for citizens. A two-step modelling approach was employed to assess ex-ante the cumulative economic impact of these FTAs on food commodity trade, production, consumption and prices in 2032.The analysis reveals that both EU imports and exports increase in value in the simulated scenarios, with notable sectoral variations. On the one hand, exports of dairy products and pig meat exhibit significant growth. On the other hand, potential vulnerabilities of the EU beef, poultry meat, sugar and rice sectors are identified.The study also examines the impact of the United Kingdom's trade agenda on the EU agri-food sector, quantifying the impact of the recent agreements between the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the UK's future accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement on the EU agri-food sector. En tant que l'un des principaux acteurs du commerce mondial, l'Union europ & eacute;enne (UE) poursuit une strat & eacute;gie commerciale ouverte, durable et affirm & eacute;e. Les r & eacute;centes conclusions et les n & eacute;gociations en cours de dix accords de libre-& eacute;change (ALE) de l'Union europ & eacute;enne avec l'Australie, le Chili, l'Inde, l'Indon & eacute;sie, la Malaisie, le bloc du Mercosur (comprenant l'Argentine, le Br & eacute;sil, le Paraguay et l'Uruguay), le Mexique, la Nouvelle-Z & eacute;lande, les Philippines et la Tha & iuml;lande devraient diversifier le commerce agroalimentaire de l'UE et renforcer la r & eacute;silience de sa cha & icirc;ne d'approvisionnement alimentaire. Cette r & eacute;silience d & eacute;pend de la diversification des sources d'importation et des d & eacute;bouch & eacute;s commerciaux, ce qui peut & ecirc;tre r & eacute;alis & eacute; gr & acirc;ce & agrave; une politique commerciale solide garantissant l'acc & egrave;s des citoyens & agrave; un approvisionnement suffisant en produits alimentaires abordables. Une approche de mod & eacute;lisation en deux & eacute;tapes a & eacute;t & eacute; utilis & eacute;e pour & eacute;valuer ex ante l'impact & eacute;conomique cumul & eacute; de ces ALE sur les & eacute;changes, la production, la consommation et les prix des produits alimentaires en 2032.L'analyse r & eacute;v & egrave;le que les importations et les exportations de l'UE augmentent en valeur dans les sc & eacute;narios simul & eacute;s, avec des variations sectorielles notables. D'une part, les exportations de produits laitiers et de viande porcine affichent une croissance significative. D'autre part, les vuln & eacute;rabilit & eacute;s potentielles des secteurs europ & eacute;ens de la viande bovine, de la viande de volaille, du sucre et du riz sont identifi & eacute;es.L'& eacute;tude examine & eacute;galement l'impact du programme commercial du Royaume-Uni sur le secteur agroalimentaire de l'UE, en quantifiant l'impact des r & eacute;cents accords entre le Royaume-Uni, l'Australie et la Nouvelle-Z & eacute;lande, ainsi que l'adh & eacute;sion future du Royaume-Uni & agrave; l'accord de partenariat transpacifique sur le secteur agroalimentaire de l'UE. Als einer der weltweit gr & ouml;ss ten Akteure im globalen Handel verfolgt die EU eine offene, nachhaltige und durchsetzungsstarke Handelsstrategie. Die j & uuml;ngsten Abschl & uuml;sse und laufenden Verhandlungen & uuml;ber zehn Freihandelsabkommen der Europ & auml;ischen Union mit Australien, Chile, Indien, Indonesien, Malaysia, dem Mercosur-Block (bestehend aus Argentinien, Brasilien, Paraguay und Uruguay), Mexiko, Neuseeland, den Philippinen und Thailand d & uuml;rften den Agrar- und Lebensmittelhandel der EU diversifizieren und die Resilienz der Lebensmittelversorgung verbessern. Diese Resilienz h & auml;ngt von der Diversifizierung der Einfuhrquellen und Absatzm & auml;rkte ab, was durch eine robuste Handelspolitik erreicht werden kann, die den B & uuml;rgerinnen und B & uuml;rgern Zugang zu einem ausreichenden Angebot an erschwinglichen Lebensmitteln sichert. Mit Hilfe eines zweistufigen Modellierungsansatzes wurden die kumulativen wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen dieser Freihandelsabkommen auf den Handel, die Produktion, den Verbrauch und die Preise von Lebensmitteln im Jahr 2032 ex ante bewertet.Die Analyse zeigt, dass sowohl die EU-Importe als auch die Exporte in den simulierten Szenarien wertm & auml;ss ig ansteigen, wobei es deutliche sektorale Unterschiede gibt. Einerseits weisen die Exporte von Milchprodukten und Schweinefleisch ein deutliches Wachstum auf. Andererseits werden potenzielle Schwachstellen in den EU-Sektoren Rindfleisch, Gefl & uuml;gelfleisch, Zucker und Reis festgestellt.Die Studie untersucht au ss erdem die Auswirkungen der Handelsagenda des Vereinigten K & ouml;nigreichs auf den EU-Agrar- und Ern & auml;hrungssektor durch die Quantifizierung der Auswirkungen der j & uuml;ngsten Abkommen zwischen dem Vereinigten K & ouml;nigreich, Australien und Neuseeland sowie des k & uuml;nftigen Beitritts des Vereinigten K & ouml;nigreichs zum Transpazifischen Partnerschaftsabkommen auf den EU-Agrar- und Ern & auml;hrungssektor.

Governments are increasingly considering fiscal instruments to improve dietary health. This paper quantifies the medium-term impacts on European food markets of a differentiated VAT policy that promotes healthy food consumption while discouraging intake of less nutritious products. Scenarios involve reduced VAT on grains, pulses, and poultry, and increased rates on beef, pork, sugar, and highfat dairy. Our results show a significant decline in domestic consumption of targeted foods. However, part of this reduction is exported to other markets – a phenomenon described as “health leakage,” raising questions about the broader effectiveness of such fiscal interventions.

Food systems exert significant stress on planetary boundaries1–3 while healthy diets are currently unaffordable for billions worldwide4. These challenges are expected to continue under global population trends, projected to reach 9.6 billion by mid-century5. Food systems must therefore transform in pursuit of health and sustainability goals6–8. However, the scale and distribution of this transformation on agriculture is underexplored. Here we show that, by 2050, an EAT-Lancet style food systems transformation results in a fundamental restructuring of global agriculture, aspects of which break with historical trends. Scenario simulations using a multi-model ensemble of 10 global economic models show a 6% median decrease in agricultural land of 274Mha (+1 to -26%, +48 to -1257Mha) compared to 2020 levels. By 2050, agricultural production would be 2 to 32% (-0.2x109 to -3.7x109 tonnes) lower than business-as-usual projections, and economically, the value of this production shows a 26% median relative decline of $1.6tn in USD2020 (+8% to -58%, +$0.5tn to -$2.9tn USD2020) Within this, the value of livestock production would fall substantially (-$1tn to -$2.2tn, -49% to -83%). These results reinforce the need for a more active role for food policy and stakeholder dialogue to catalyse such a transformation and navigate the political economic consequences of its impacts.

Aquatic foods are crucial for global food and nutrition security, but overfishing has led to depleted fish stocks, threatening both food security and the environment. Here, we combine a fish stock model with a global agriculture and food market model in order to analyze scenarios involving a continuation of current fishing trends versus optimal management through maximum sustainable yield targets. Maximum sustainable yield management of overfished stocks could increase yields by 10.6 Megatons, equivalent to 12% of total catches and 6% of aquatic animal production in 2022. This would alleviate the need for aquaculture expansion by an equivalent of 3 years of growth in the aquaculture sector at its current level, and reduce meat and feed demand. Lower food prices and additional supply could enhance global food security. Conversely, continued overfishing will likely lead to lower catches over time, adding pressure to the agricultural and aquaculture sectors. Although maximum sustainable yield management is not a panacea, it represents a positive step towards achieving sustainable food production.

This paper analyses how climate change might impact EU agricultural markets by mid-century, considering a large ensemble of climate change projections from different models, market adjustments and trade feedbacks. Applying consistent climate change driven productivity shocks to a global multi-commodity agricultural market model we show that the negative direct effects from climate change on crop production in the EU could be offset by market and trade adjustments. The simulations reveal that climate change has heterogeneous impacts across regions. EU farming sector, in particular, might actually benefit from climate change as the impacts on agricultural productivity are expected to be more severe in important non-EU production regions such as US, Russia and Ukraine, depending on the crop. Higher producer prices for important crops such as wheat, barley, grain maize, rice and soybeans, lead to an increase in EU production and exports. For instance EU wheat production could increase by 13% and exports by 28%, with 19% higher farm incomes on average than in a business-as-usual situation. Our study has several limitations. In particular, we do not consider CO2 fertilization effects and direct effect from climate change on livestock sector, climate variability and extreme weather effects. Notwithstanding, our findings highlight the heterogeneity of climate change impacts across regions, specifically Northern versus Southern Europe, and the importance of market and trade adjustments as economic adaptation mechanisms to climate change.

This chapter provides some insights on how climate change can affect agricultural commodity markets in the medium to long term. It includes some methodological aspects on how different quantitative tools, ranging from earth system models to farm-level production decisions, can be combined in the analysis of climate change impacts on agricultural markets. The analysis presented here is supported by several agro-economic studies carried out by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

Earlier studies have noted potential adverse impacts of land-related emissions mitigation strategies on food security, particularly due to food price increases—but without distinguishing these strategies’ individual effects under different conditions. Using six global agroeconomic models, we show the extent to which three factors—non-CO 2 emissions reduction, bioenergy production and afforestation—may change food security and agricultural market conditions under 2 °C climate-stabilization scenarios. Results show that afforestation (often simulated in the models by imposing carbon prices on land carbon stocks) could have a large impact on food security relative to non-CO 2 emissions policies (generally implemented as emissions taxes). Respectively, these measures put an additional 41.9 million and 26.7 million people at risk of hunger in 2050 compared with the current trend scenario baseline. This highlights the need for better coordination in emissions reduction and agricultural market management policies as well as better representation of land use and associated greenhouse gas emissions in modelling.

Agriculture is a major source of air pollution in Europe, with adverse impacts on human health. Having recognized the serious health outcomes, and in direct response to public demand for a cleaner environment, European public policies are aiming to reduce air pollution. This study proposes a shift to more plant-based human diets to help achieve bold reduction targets for air pollution from agriculture. To assess the potential reduction in agricultural air pollution, we combine a large-scale partial equilibrium model for agriculture (CAPRI) with an atmospheric chemistry model (WRF-Chem). The health impacts from improved air quality are summarized as premature mortality rates, which are estimated from simulated changes in annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. We find that a shift to plant-based (flexitarian) diets would reduce ammonia emissions by 33% in the European Union (EU), generating significant co-benefits for air quality and human health. The economic benefits from improved human health would also largely mitigate the economic losses in the agricultural sector (39% in the EU and 49% in Europe as a whole). Our results suggest that, by shifting to plant-based human diets, European agriculture could significantly contribute to the targets in the EU Zero Pollution Action Plan.

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-use (AFOLU) are thought to play a vital role in long-term GHG emissions reduction, especially for their importance in non-CO2 emissions, bioenergy supply and carbon sequestration realized by afforestation. Several studies have noted potential adverse impacts of land-related emissions mitigation on food security, due to food price increases, but these studies have not disaggregated the individual aspects of land-related emissions mitigation that impact food security. Here, we show the extent to which three factors—non-CO2 emissions reduction, bioenergy production, and afforestation—change the food security and agricultural market conditions under 2 °C climate stabilization scenarios, using six global agro-economic models. The results show that afforestation, often implemented in the models by imposing carbon prices on land carbon stocks, causes the largest impacts on food security, followed by non-CO2 emissions policies, generally implemented as emissions taxes. Respectively, these measures put an additional 41.9 and 26.7 million people at risk of hunger in 2050. This study highlights the need for better coordination of emissions reduction and agricultural market management policy.

Methane's short atmospheric life has important implications for the design of global climate change mitigation policies in agriculture. Three different agricultural economic models are used to explore how short- and long-term warming effects of methane can affect the cost-effectiveness of mitigation policies and dietary transitions. Results show that the choice of a particular metric for methane's warming potential is key to determine optimal mitigation options, with metrics based on shorter-term impacts leading to greater overall emission reduction. Also, the promotion of low-meat diets is more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to carbon pricing when mitigation policies are based on metrics that reflect methane's long-term behaviour. A combination of stringent mitigation measures and dietary changes could achieve substantial emission reduction levels, helping reverse the contribution of agriculture to global warming.

Agriculture, forestry and other land use are important components of a global strategy to limit climate change. Using the example of EU agriculture, this paper examines the potential contribution of technological (i.e. technical and management-based) greenhouse gas mitigation options to climate targets. The quantitative framework presented allows to analyze disparities between marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs) derived from two different commonly used approaches, and between aggregated and regional MACCs. Results highlight the importance of assessing mitigation of agricultural emissions from a multi-dimensional perspective, considering regional heterogeneity of biophysical and economic circumstances and comprising both carbon-dioxide (CO2) and non-CO2 emissions. Regarding the ranking of technologies in terms of mitigation potential and costs, the results underline the need to consider technologies in a combined manner, avoiding the simple aggregation of mitigation potentials by individual measures without taking their interactions into account. Focusing only on standalone MACCs can lead to an overestimation of the mitigation potential. Conversely, measures classified as relatively high cost in standalone and aggregated MACCs should not be discarded, as they can still be cost-effective in some regions. The analysis shows that there is no ‘one size fits all’ rule that could be followed for identifying technologies that should be implemented in all regions. From a policy perspective the results imply that farmers should be granted some flexibility to adopt a set of cost-effective mitigation options that best fits their circumstances.