This document discusses options for mitigating agricultural emissions while ensuring food security. It finds that:
1) The largest sources of agricultural emissions are enteric fermentation from livestock and manure management, though fertilizer use is also a major source.
2) Options for reducing emissions include improving livestock diets, manure management practices, and fertilizer efficiency. However, these technical solutions can only achieve modest reductions of around 10%.
3) Deeper emissions cuts will require lowering animal populations through sustainable intensification and reducing meat consumption, as enteric fermentation and manure are hard to abate without fewer livestock.
Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food SecurityShenggen Fan
This document discusses the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security. It notes that climate change will negatively affect crop and livestock yields through higher temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events. This will lower global food production and increase food prices and malnutrition. Agriculture is a key source of greenhouse gas emissions but can also help mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration. The document calls for integrating climate change into strategies to adapt agriculture and ensure food security, such as investing in research, irrigation, drought-resistant crops, and social safety nets.
Climate change is impacting global food security in several ways. Food prices are higher and more volatile due to factors like population growth, economic development, and the conversion of agricultural land to other uses. Climate change is altering crop patterns and increasing natural disasters, reducing food production and stockpiles. To address these challenges, governments need policies to strengthen food production and resilience to climate change, stabilize food prices, and improve food access and distribution, especially for vulnerable households. International cooperation is also required to support research, capacity building, and emergency food reserves.
Presentation by Sonja Vermeulen, Head of Research and Vanessa Meadu, Communications and Knowledge Manager, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Delivered to private sector representatives in London on 11 July 2013.
Climate Change & Its Relationship with Agriculture by Yogendra KatuwalYogendra Katuwal
Prepared by Yogendra Katuwal M.Sc. Ag (Agronomy) student of AFU, Rampur, Nepal. What is actually the relationship between climate change and agriculture is included needs a better understanding.
Climate change adaptation and livelihoods in AsiaPrabhakar SVRK
The presentation provides a review of literature on the observed and projected impacts of climate change and adaptation options. Presented at Climate Change Symposium: Latest Scientific Knowledge on Climate Change and Actions on Climate Change Impacts in Japan. 26 March 2014, 15:30 – 18:15, Pacifico Yokohama Conference Center, Yokohama, Japan. MOEJ and IGES. Link to the agenda:
http://www.iges.or.jp/files/research/natural-resource/PDF/20140326/programme.pdf
Changes in climate affects the land and farming immensely. Due to this,the crop growth is affected and results in inadequacy of seasonal crop outcome which does not meet the demands of the living beings. Hence, Climatic change has become a chief issue to be looked forth in order to prevent further threatenings to the livelihood. I have made a gist of the existing issue on climate changes and the insecurities of food resources in India.
Economic impacts of climate change in the philippine agriculture sectorCIFOR-ICRAF
Presentation by Mark W. Rosegrant, Nicostrato Perez, Angga Pradesha, Timothy S. Thomas and Mercedita A. Sombilla at “Up and down the scales of time and place: Integrating global trends and local decisions to make the world more food-secure by 2050” Discussion Forum on the first day of the Global Landscapes Forum 2015, in Paris, France alongside COP21. For more information go to: www.landscapes.org.
Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food SecurityShenggen Fan
This document discusses the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security. It notes that climate change will negatively affect crop and livestock yields through higher temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events. This will lower global food production and increase food prices and malnutrition. Agriculture is a key source of greenhouse gas emissions but can also help mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration. The document calls for integrating climate change into strategies to adapt agriculture and ensure food security, such as investing in research, irrigation, drought-resistant crops, and social safety nets.
Climate change is impacting global food security in several ways. Food prices are higher and more volatile due to factors like population growth, economic development, and the conversion of agricultural land to other uses. Climate change is altering crop patterns and increasing natural disasters, reducing food production and stockpiles. To address these challenges, governments need policies to strengthen food production and resilience to climate change, stabilize food prices, and improve food access and distribution, especially for vulnerable households. International cooperation is also required to support research, capacity building, and emergency food reserves.
Presentation by Sonja Vermeulen, Head of Research and Vanessa Meadu, Communications and Knowledge Manager, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Delivered to private sector representatives in London on 11 July 2013.
Climate Change & Its Relationship with Agriculture by Yogendra KatuwalYogendra Katuwal
Prepared by Yogendra Katuwal M.Sc. Ag (Agronomy) student of AFU, Rampur, Nepal. What is actually the relationship between climate change and agriculture is included needs a better understanding.
Climate change adaptation and livelihoods in AsiaPrabhakar SVRK
The presentation provides a review of literature on the observed and projected impacts of climate change and adaptation options. Presented at Climate Change Symposium: Latest Scientific Knowledge on Climate Change and Actions on Climate Change Impacts in Japan. 26 March 2014, 15:30 – 18:15, Pacifico Yokohama Conference Center, Yokohama, Japan. MOEJ and IGES. Link to the agenda:
http://www.iges.or.jp/files/research/natural-resource/PDF/20140326/programme.pdf
Changes in climate affects the land and farming immensely. Due to this,the crop growth is affected and results in inadequacy of seasonal crop outcome which does not meet the demands of the living beings. Hence, Climatic change has become a chief issue to be looked forth in order to prevent further threatenings to the livelihood. I have made a gist of the existing issue on climate changes and the insecurities of food resources in India.
Economic impacts of climate change in the philippine agriculture sectorCIFOR-ICRAF
Presentation by Mark W. Rosegrant, Nicostrato Perez, Angga Pradesha, Timothy S. Thomas and Mercedita A. Sombilla at “Up and down the scales of time and place: Integrating global trends and local decisions to make the world more food-secure by 2050” Discussion Forum on the first day of the Global Landscapes Forum 2015, in Paris, France alongside COP21. For more information go to: www.landscapes.org.
This document discusses the impact of climate change on food security in Pakistan. It introduces food security and climate change, then outlines the dimensions of food security. It states that Pakistan is an agrarian country and the interaction between climate change and agriculture is complex. Problems caused by climate change that affect food security are then discussed, such as floods, drought, and water crises. The effects of climate change like acidic rain and heat stress on agriculture are also outlined. The document establishes the problem statement, significance, research questions and objectives of studying this topic. It reviews relevant literature and presents two hypotheses. The methodology and model used are described, which find that rainfall has a positive impact on food production while temperature has a negative impact. Recommend
This document summarizes the impacts of climate change on agriculture in India. It discusses how climate change can negatively affect crop yields and production through increased temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and more frequent extreme weather events. It provides examples of studies that project declines in the production of crops like rice, wheat and sorghum in different parts of India due to climate change. The document also discusses how climate change may reduce milk production in India. It identifies adaptation strategies like altered cropping practices and integrated farming as ways for agriculture to build resilience against climate impacts.
The document discusses the challenges of climate change for agriculture and food security. It argues that resources and research need to focus on helping poor rural communities adapt. International climate agreements could impact food security depending on how agriculture is treated and funds are allocated. The document proposes specific policy actions and Copenhagen agreement language around incentivizing agricultural mitigation, increasing adaptation investment, and establishing a public technology network focused on climate-smart agriculture.
This document discusses the potential impacts of climate change on Bhutan's food security. It notes that Bhutan has a mountainous ecosystem that is vulnerable to climate change. Its agriculture is important for food security and livelihoods but is threatened by climate change. Specific climate hazards discussed are melting glaciers, landslides, and rising temperatures. These hazards can damage crops and infrastructure, cause food insecurity and health issues. Adaptation measures discussed include early warning systems, lowering glacial lake levels, soil conservation, water harvesting, and incentives for low emission technologies. The conclusion states that climate change is already affecting food systems and vulnerability, and greater impacts are expected in the future.
Climate change impact and adaptation in wheatICARDA
8 May 2019. Cairo. ICARDA Workshop on Modeling Climate Change Impacts in Agriculture.
Climate change impact and adaptation in wheat. Presentation by by Prof. Senthold Asseng, Professor at the Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department of the University of Florida.
The presentation narrates the possible prediction of climate change over the geographic location of Tamil Nadu state and its most predominant impact on agriculture. Furthermore, it also deals with the crop yield prediction and possible mitigation of adverse impacts.
Mitigation Opportunities in AgricultureCIFOR-ICRAF
This presentation by Dr. Charlotte Schreck from CLIMATEFOCUS explains how agriculture is part of many agendas, what technical mitigation opportunities we have, what the costs are and how CLUA could be mitigated.
impact of climate change in rainfed agricultureAnkush Singh
This document summarizes a master's seminar on the impact of climate change on rainfed agriculture. It discusses how climate change affects agricultural production through higher temperatures and changing precipitation patterns. Key impacts include reduced soil productivity, increased water demand and pest populations, and decreased crop yields. The document also outlines strategies for agricultural adaptation, including developing resistant crop varieties, improved water and land management, and crop diversification. Overall, the seminar evaluated how climate change threatens rainfed agriculture systems and policies needed to help farmers adapt.
The presentation was part of the Food Security in India: the Interactions of Climate Change, Economics, Politics and Trade workshop, organized by IFPRI-CUTS on March 11 in New Delhi, India. The project seeks to explore a model for analyzing food security in India through the interactions of climate change, economics, politics and trade.
1. The document discusses the impacts of climate change on Indian agriculture. It is expected to affect agricultural productivity and shift crop patterns due to factors like increasing temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and more frequent extreme weather events.
2. Studies have shown that increases in temperature could reduce yields of crops like rice and wheat. Climate change may also lead to a change in suitable areas for growing certain crops. Rain-fed agriculture is expected to be more severely impacted than irrigated agriculture.
3. The impacts of climate change on agriculture could have wide-ranging implications for issues like food security, trade, livelihoods, and water conservation in India given the country's dependence on agriculture. Adaptation and mitigation strategies will
Climate change impacts on agriculture and rural development in the Pacific Re...Euforic Services
The document discusses the impacts of climate change on agriculture and rural development in Pacific island countries. It notes that rising sea levels and changes in rainfall patterns from climate change threaten coconut trees, an important food and cash crop. On Maiana Island in Kiribati, decreases in rainfall are reducing food and copra production, potentially exacerbating effects of sea level rise such as land loss. Climate change also poses challenges for rural energy development projects in Kiribati by reducing incomes from copra that communities rely on to purchase and maintain new energy systems. Adaptation will require financial resources, developing resilient cash crops, and gender-sensitive policies.
Climate change and Agriculture: Impact Aadaptation and MitigationPragyaNaithani
Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its Variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). For the past some decades, the gaseous composition of earth’s atmosphere is undergoing a significant change, largely through increased emissions from energy, industry and agriculture sectors; widespread deforestation as well as fast changes in land use and land management practices. These anthropogenic activities are resulting in an increased emission of radiatively active gases, viz. carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), popularly known as the ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHGs)
These GHGs trap the outgoing infrared radiations from the earth’s surface and thus raise the temperature of the atmosphere. The global mean annual temperature at the end of the 20th century, as a result of GHG accumulation in the atmosphere, has increased by 0.4–0.7 ºC above that recorded at the end of the 19th century. The past 50 years have shown an increasing trend in temperature @ 0.13 °C/decade, while the rise in temperature during the past one and half decades has been much higher. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has projected the temperature increase to be between 1.1 °C and 6.4 °C by the end of the 21st Century (IPCC, 2007). The global warming is expected to lead to other regional and global changes in the climate-related parameters such as rainfall, soil moisture, and sea level. Snow cover is also reported to be gradually decreasing.
Therefore, concerted efforts are required for mitigation and adaptation to reduce the vulnerability of agriculture to the adverse impacts of climate change and making it more resilient.
The adaptive capacity of poor farmers is limited because of subsistence agriculture and low level of formal education. Therefore, simple, economically viable and culturally acceptable adaptation strategies have to be developed and implemented. Furthermore, the transfer of knowledge as well as access to social, economic, institutional, and technical resources need to be provided and integrated within the existing resources of farmers.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND CROP WATER PRODUCTIVITY - IMPACT AND MITIGATIONDebjyoti Majumder
This document discusses the impacts of climate change on crop water productivity and mitigation strategies. It begins with definitions of climate change and the greenhouse effect. It then shows data on increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and rising global temperatures. Various impacts are described, such as effects on crop yields from increased temperature and CO2 levels. Strategies to improve water use efficiency and mitigate impacts are covered, such as mulching, land configuration, irrigation scheduling and precision land leveling. Overall, the document analyzes how climate change affects crop water productivity and different agricultural practices that can help address this.
CGIAR and Climate-Smart Agriculture
The document discusses the importance of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in addressing climate change impacts. CSA aims to increase agricultural productivity and incomes, enhance resilience of food systems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Significant CSA successes highlighted include China paying farmers to plant trees which sequestered over 700,000 tons of carbon, and coffee-banana agroforestry systems in Africa increasing smallholder incomes by over 50% while providing climate mitigation. The document argues spreading agroforestry across Africa could boost food production, sequester billions of tons of carbon annually, and improve resilience for over 140 million people. Direct agricultural emissions vary widely by region and sector. CSA offers
This document discusses how ecological agriculture can help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Specifically, it argues that shifting to more sustainable farming practices that build up soil carbon and use fewer chemical inputs has significant potential to reduce agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon sequestration in soils. Practices like crop rotations, cover crops, and agroforestry can both mitigate emissions and help agriculture adapt to climate impacts by improving soil quality, fertility, and resilience. The document estimates that a global conversion to organic agricultural practices could mitigate 40-65% of agriculture's emissions through soil carbon sequestration alone. Overall, the document makes the case that ecological agriculture optimally integrates climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
This document discusses the impact of climate change on food security in Pakistan. It introduces food security and climate change, then outlines the dimensions of food security. It states that Pakistan is an agrarian country and the interaction between climate change and agriculture is complex. Problems caused by climate change that affect food security are then discussed, such as floods, drought, and water crises. The effects of climate change like acidic rain and heat stress on agriculture are also outlined. The document establishes the problem statement, significance, research questions and objectives of studying this topic. It reviews relevant literature and presents two hypotheses. The methodology and model used are described, which find that rainfall has a positive impact on food production while temperature has a negative impact. Recommend
This document summarizes the impacts of climate change on agriculture in India. It discusses how climate change can negatively affect crop yields and production through increased temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and more frequent extreme weather events. It provides examples of studies that project declines in the production of crops like rice, wheat and sorghum in different parts of India due to climate change. The document also discusses how climate change may reduce milk production in India. It identifies adaptation strategies like altered cropping practices and integrated farming as ways for agriculture to build resilience against climate impacts.
The document discusses the challenges of climate change for agriculture and food security. It argues that resources and research need to focus on helping poor rural communities adapt. International climate agreements could impact food security depending on how agriculture is treated and funds are allocated. The document proposes specific policy actions and Copenhagen agreement language around incentivizing agricultural mitigation, increasing adaptation investment, and establishing a public technology network focused on climate-smart agriculture.
This document discusses the potential impacts of climate change on Bhutan's food security. It notes that Bhutan has a mountainous ecosystem that is vulnerable to climate change. Its agriculture is important for food security and livelihoods but is threatened by climate change. Specific climate hazards discussed are melting glaciers, landslides, and rising temperatures. These hazards can damage crops and infrastructure, cause food insecurity and health issues. Adaptation measures discussed include early warning systems, lowering glacial lake levels, soil conservation, water harvesting, and incentives for low emission technologies. The conclusion states that climate change is already affecting food systems and vulnerability, and greater impacts are expected in the future.
Climate change impact and adaptation in wheatICARDA
8 May 2019. Cairo. ICARDA Workshop on Modeling Climate Change Impacts in Agriculture.
Climate change impact and adaptation in wheat. Presentation by by Prof. Senthold Asseng, Professor at the Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department of the University of Florida.
The presentation narrates the possible prediction of climate change over the geographic location of Tamil Nadu state and its most predominant impact on agriculture. Furthermore, it also deals with the crop yield prediction and possible mitigation of adverse impacts.
Mitigation Opportunities in AgricultureCIFOR-ICRAF
This presentation by Dr. Charlotte Schreck from CLIMATEFOCUS explains how agriculture is part of many agendas, what technical mitigation opportunities we have, what the costs are and how CLUA could be mitigated.
impact of climate change in rainfed agricultureAnkush Singh
This document summarizes a master's seminar on the impact of climate change on rainfed agriculture. It discusses how climate change affects agricultural production through higher temperatures and changing precipitation patterns. Key impacts include reduced soil productivity, increased water demand and pest populations, and decreased crop yields. The document also outlines strategies for agricultural adaptation, including developing resistant crop varieties, improved water and land management, and crop diversification. Overall, the seminar evaluated how climate change threatens rainfed agriculture systems and policies needed to help farmers adapt.
The presentation was part of the Food Security in India: the Interactions of Climate Change, Economics, Politics and Trade workshop, organized by IFPRI-CUTS on March 11 in New Delhi, India. The project seeks to explore a model for analyzing food security in India through the interactions of climate change, economics, politics and trade.
1. The document discusses the impacts of climate change on Indian agriculture. It is expected to affect agricultural productivity and shift crop patterns due to factors like increasing temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and more frequent extreme weather events.
2. Studies have shown that increases in temperature could reduce yields of crops like rice and wheat. Climate change may also lead to a change in suitable areas for growing certain crops. Rain-fed agriculture is expected to be more severely impacted than irrigated agriculture.
3. The impacts of climate change on agriculture could have wide-ranging implications for issues like food security, trade, livelihoods, and water conservation in India given the country's dependence on agriculture. Adaptation and mitigation strategies will
Climate change impacts on agriculture and rural development in the Pacific Re...Euforic Services
The document discusses the impacts of climate change on agriculture and rural development in Pacific island countries. It notes that rising sea levels and changes in rainfall patterns from climate change threaten coconut trees, an important food and cash crop. On Maiana Island in Kiribati, decreases in rainfall are reducing food and copra production, potentially exacerbating effects of sea level rise such as land loss. Climate change also poses challenges for rural energy development projects in Kiribati by reducing incomes from copra that communities rely on to purchase and maintain new energy systems. Adaptation will require financial resources, developing resilient cash crops, and gender-sensitive policies.
Climate change and Agriculture: Impact Aadaptation and MitigationPragyaNaithani
Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its Variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). For the past some decades, the gaseous composition of earth’s atmosphere is undergoing a significant change, largely through increased emissions from energy, industry and agriculture sectors; widespread deforestation as well as fast changes in land use and land management practices. These anthropogenic activities are resulting in an increased emission of radiatively active gases, viz. carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), popularly known as the ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHGs)
These GHGs trap the outgoing infrared radiations from the earth’s surface and thus raise the temperature of the atmosphere. The global mean annual temperature at the end of the 20th century, as a result of GHG accumulation in the atmosphere, has increased by 0.4–0.7 ºC above that recorded at the end of the 19th century. The past 50 years have shown an increasing trend in temperature @ 0.13 °C/decade, while the rise in temperature during the past one and half decades has been much higher. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has projected the temperature increase to be between 1.1 °C and 6.4 °C by the end of the 21st Century (IPCC, 2007). The global warming is expected to lead to other regional and global changes in the climate-related parameters such as rainfall, soil moisture, and sea level. Snow cover is also reported to be gradually decreasing.
Therefore, concerted efforts are required for mitigation and adaptation to reduce the vulnerability of agriculture to the adverse impacts of climate change and making it more resilient.
The adaptive capacity of poor farmers is limited because of subsistence agriculture and low level of formal education. Therefore, simple, economically viable and culturally acceptable adaptation strategies have to be developed and implemented. Furthermore, the transfer of knowledge as well as access to social, economic, institutional, and technical resources need to be provided and integrated within the existing resources of farmers.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND CROP WATER PRODUCTIVITY - IMPACT AND MITIGATIONDebjyoti Majumder
This document discusses the impacts of climate change on crop water productivity and mitigation strategies. It begins with definitions of climate change and the greenhouse effect. It then shows data on increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and rising global temperatures. Various impacts are described, such as effects on crop yields from increased temperature and CO2 levels. Strategies to improve water use efficiency and mitigate impacts are covered, such as mulching, land configuration, irrigation scheduling and precision land leveling. Overall, the document analyzes how climate change affects crop water productivity and different agricultural practices that can help address this.
CGIAR and Climate-Smart Agriculture
The document discusses the importance of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in addressing climate change impacts. CSA aims to increase agricultural productivity and incomes, enhance resilience of food systems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Significant CSA successes highlighted include China paying farmers to plant trees which sequestered over 700,000 tons of carbon, and coffee-banana agroforestry systems in Africa increasing smallholder incomes by over 50% while providing climate mitigation. The document argues spreading agroforestry across Africa could boost food production, sequester billions of tons of carbon annually, and improve resilience for over 140 million people. Direct agricultural emissions vary widely by region and sector. CSA offers
This document discusses how ecological agriculture can help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Specifically, it argues that shifting to more sustainable farming practices that build up soil carbon and use fewer chemical inputs has significant potential to reduce agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon sequestration in soils. Practices like crop rotations, cover crops, and agroforestry can both mitigate emissions and help agriculture adapt to climate impacts by improving soil quality, fertility, and resilience. The document estimates that a global conversion to organic agricultural practices could mitigate 40-65% of agriculture's emissions through soil carbon sequestration alone. Overall, the document makes the case that ecological agriculture optimally integrates climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Rosegrant, Mark. 2023. Climate Change and Agriculture: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation. PowerPoint presentation given during university-wide seminar. Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, March 30, 2023.
I. Business-as-usual intensification alone will not achieve the necessary emissions reductions in agriculture by 2030 to limit warming to 2°C.
II. Plausible mitigation practices can achieve only 10-40% of needed reductions by 2030.
III. Significant mitigation can be achieved by reducing conversion of forests to agriculture, but requires location-specific interventions to avoid deforestation.
Food policy - EU Climate Change and the impact Dietary Choice Feb 2016New Food Innovation Ltd
This review by the respected experts of Chalmers University , Sweden shows the dramatic changes in consumer diets required to offset the GHG production created by the Livestock and Dairy industry
Presentation by Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS Low Emission Development Flagship Leader.
Event: Building a Resilient Future: Transforming food systems under a changing climate, at the Climate Week NYC
Date: 22 September 2019
Read more about the event: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/ccafs-un-climate-week-nyc-building-resilient-future-transforming-food-systems-under-changing-climate
The effects of global climate change on agriculture(4)Paktia University
This document summarizes the effects of global climate change on agriculture. It finds that agriculture contributes approximately 20% of annual greenhouse gas emissions through practices like deforestation, livestock production, and biomass burning. Rising temperatures and shifts in precipitation patterns from climate change will impact agricultural production globally and regionally. Effects may include changes in crop yields, suitable land areas, and increased pest/disease pressure. Adaptations can help mitigate these impacts to some degree but climate change poses risks for global and local food security.
The Climate Food and Farming (CLIFF) Research Network is an international research network that helps to expand young researchers' knowledge and experience working on climate change mitigation in smallholder farming. CLIFF provides grants for selected doctoral students to work with CGIAR researchers affiliated with the Standard Assessment of Mitigation Potential and Livelihoods in Smallholder Systems (SAMPLES) project.
This presentation is Agricultural Hotspots in the Tropics: mitigation pathways by Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta, a CLIFF student with CCAFS.
Presentation at the Low Emissions Livestock: Supporting Policy Making and Implementation through Science in East Africa regional awareness raising workshop held at the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia between 2 and 4 July 2018.
This document summarizes key points from Chapter 11 of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report regarding agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sectors. It outlines trends in GHG emissions from agriculture and forestry, as well as supply-side and demand-side mitigation options. It also discusses climate change impacts on AFOLU, costs and potentials of mitigation measures, co-benefits and risks, barriers and opportunities, sectoral policies, and issues around bioenergy. The document provides an overview of the major topics covered in the chapter through bullet point lists.
Impact of Agriculture on Climate Change in Ukraine and Solutions to Reduce GH...Mykola Shlapak
Presentation for the #COP27 side event "Impact of agriculture production on climate change. How do we mitigate and adapt to climate change in agriculture, considering the war and global crises?"
Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substance whose emissions are increasing rapidly and expected to double by 2050. A new UNEP report finds that reducing nitrous oxide emissions through measures like improving nitrogen use efficiency in agriculture, installing emissions controls in industry, and better waste management could lower emissions 22% by 2050 compared to business as usual. This would provide significant benefits including slowing climate change, protecting the ozone layer, and saving over $23 billion per year in fertilizer costs alone. While barriers include costs and lack of knowledge, the report identifies policy options to incentivize reductions under frameworks like the UNFCCC and Montreal Protocol.
The agricultural sector contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change through several means. It is responsible for 10-12% of total emissions, which can rise as high as 17% when accounting for land use changes due to agriculture. Key sources of emissions include rice production, livestock (enteric fermentation and manure), and use of nitrogen fertilizers. Mitigation strategies proposed to reduce agricultural emissions include more efficient livestock farming, improved manure management, lower dependence on fossil fuels, and reducing production and consumption of animal-sourced foods.
Bridging the gaps: Challenges and Opportunities CGIAR
Bridging the gaps between AR and ARD Challenges and Opportunities- presented by Alain Vidal, Senior Advisor, Capacity Development and Partnerships, CGIAR Consortium at the AKIS-ARCH Workshop, Brussels, 26-27 May 2014
Climate smart agriculture and its benefits for ecosystems and food securityAlain Vidal
Conference given at University Paris-Saclay / AgroParisTech on 19 November 2019 as part of Master CLUES (Sequence "Everyone Eating Well within Environmental Limits")
Climate smart agriculture and its benefits for ecosystems and food security 2...Alain Vidal
Conference given at University Paris-Saclay / AgroParisTech on 17 November 2020 as part of Master CLUES (Sequence "Everyone Eating Well within Environmental Limits")
Benefits of landscape restoration, with a focus on African dryland biomesNAP Events
Presented by: Olivier Maes
SESSION II: PLENARY – APPROACHES TO ADAPTATION IN SELECTED SECTORS
The session will set the context for approaches to adaptation by looking at: latest approaches on assessing impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security; applying disaster risk reduction as a pillar of national adaptation strategy in the Philippines; and The Hydrologic Corridor in Africa - an affordable and scalable approach to restore the water cycle and impact local climate through large scale landscape restoration, including rainwater harvesting, reforestation, soil regeneration and sustainable climate adapted agriculture.
Paris agreement westafrica diagnosis capacity needsPatrickTanz
This document analyzes the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement in West Africa. It examines the Nationally Determined Contributions and capacity building needs in the region. West Africa faces significant climate change impacts like rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns. Regional organizations can help coordinate the response by supporting national policies and initiatives. The document reviews the NDCs of 17 West African countries and finds heterogeneity in their commitments and progress. It also identifies capacity building as key, and analyzes the needs expressed by these countries, such as needs related to planning, reporting, and climate finance. Regional cooperation is crucial to address climate challenges through initiatives like knowledge sharing and coordinated action.
This document provides an executive summary of a foundations paper drafted by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) regarding principles, definitions, metrics, and considerations for financial institutions to set quantitative net-zero targets. The summary outlines key questions addressed, such as what reaching net-zero means for a financial institution and how financed emissions and climate solutions should be addressed. It also provides an overview of the process for developing an SBTi Finance Net-Zero Standard to guide financial institutions in setting robust, science-based net-zero targets.
1. The document provides an updated synthesis of information from 165 NDCs representing 192 parties to the Paris Agreement.
2. It finds that estimated total global GHG emissions in 2025 and 2030 would be 4-5% higher than 2019 levels based on implemented NDCs.
3. For the 116 new or updated NDCs, emissions are projected to be 3.7-11% lower in 2025 and 2030 compared to previous NDCs. However, overall emissions remain significantly higher than pathways limiting warming to 1.5-2°C.
Plastics costs to the society and the environmentPatrickTanz
This document summarizes a report about the costs of plastic to society, the environment, and the economy. It finds that the lifetime cost of plastic produced in 2019 will be at least $3.7 trillion due to negative external impacts not reflected in plastic's market price, such as greenhouse gas emissions, waste management costs, and environmental damage from plastic pollution. Without action, the lifetime costs of plastic produced in 2040 could reach over $7 trillion. Currently the global approach is failing to adequately address the plastic crisis. Urgent government action is needed at both the international and national levels to internalize plastic's real costs and establish an effective regulatory framework.
Plastics, the costs to societyand the environmentPatrickTanz
This document summarizes a report about the costs of plastic to society, the environment, and the economy. It finds that the lifetime cost of plastic produced in 2019 will be at least $3.7 trillion, more than the GDP of India. This cost is much higher than the market price paid for plastic, which fails to account for costs across the plastic lifecycle like greenhouse gas emissions, waste management, and environmental damage from plastic pollution. Without action, the lifetime costs of plastic produced in 2040 could reach over $7 trillion due to expected increases in plastic production. The report calls for governments and industries to take urgent action through policies, regulations, and international agreements to address the plastic crisis and internalize the true costs of plastic
The document provides an overview of nutrient management and fertilizers. It discusses the essential nutrients required for healthy plant growth, different organic and mineral nutrient sources, and why fertilizers are needed to maintain soil fertility and support productive and nutritious crops. The main nutrient sources discussed are soil nutrients, crop residues, manure, compost, biological nitrogen fixation, and manufactured fertilizers. It also covers nutrient cycling and losses, integrated nutrient management approaches, and the principles of nutrient stewardship.
Optimizing Post Remediation Groundwater Performance with Enhanced Microbiolog...Joshua Orris
Results of geophysics and pneumatic injection pilot tests during 2003 – 2007 yielded significant positive results for injection delivery design and contaminant mass treatment, resulting in permanent shut-down of an existing groundwater Pump & Treat system.
Accessible source areas were subsequently removed (2011) by soil excavation and treated with the placement of Emulsified Vegetable Oil EVO and zero-valent iron ZVI to accelerate treatment of impacted groundwater in overburden and weathered fractured bedrock. Post pilot test and post remediation groundwater monitoring has included analyses of CVOCs, organic fatty acids, dissolved gases and QuantArray® -Chlor to quantify key microorganisms (e.g., Dehalococcoides, Dehalobacter, etc.) and functional genes (e.g., vinyl chloride reductase, methane monooxygenase, etc.) to assess potential for reductive dechlorination and aerobic cometabolism of CVOCs.
In 2022, the first commercial application of MetaArray™ was performed at the site. MetaArray™ utilizes statistical analysis, such as principal component analysis and multivariate analysis to provide evidence that reductive dechlorination is active or even that it is slowing. This creates actionable data allowing users to save money by making important site management decisions earlier.
The results of the MetaArray™ analysis’ support vector machine (SVM) identified groundwater monitoring wells with a 80% confidence that were characterized as either Limited for Reductive Decholorination or had a High Reductive Reduction Dechlorination potential. The results of MetaArray™ will be used to further optimize the site’s post remediation monitoring program for monitored natural attenuation.
Improving the viability of probiotics by encapsulation methods for developmen...Open Access Research Paper
The popularity of functional foods among scientists and common people has been increasing day by day. Awareness and modernization make the consumer think better regarding food and nutrition. Now a day’s individual knows very well about the relation between food consumption and disease prevalence. Humans have a diversity of microbes in the gut that together form the gut microflora. Probiotics are the health-promoting live microbial cells improve host health through gut and brain connection and fighting against harmful bacteria. Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are the two bacterial genera which are considered to be probiotic. These good bacteria are facing challenges of viability. There are so many factors such as sensitivity to heat, pH, acidity, osmotic effect, mechanical shear, chemical components, freezing and storage time as well which affects the viability of probiotics in the dairy food matrix as well as in the gut. Multiple efforts have been done in the past and ongoing in present for these beneficial microbial population stability until their destination in the gut. One of a useful technique known as microencapsulation makes the probiotic effective in the diversified conditions and maintain these microbe’s community to the optimum level for achieving targeted benefits. Dairy products are found to be an ideal vehicle for probiotic incorporation. It has been seen that the encapsulated microbial cells show higher viability than the free cells in different processing and storage conditions as well as against bile salts in the gut. They make the food functional when incorporated, without affecting the product sensory characteristics.
Kinetic studies on malachite green dye adsorption from aqueous solutions by A...Open Access Research Paper
Water polluted by dyestuffs compounds is a global threat to health and the environment; accordingly, we prepared a green novel sorbent chemical and Physical system from an algae, chitosan and chitosan nanoparticle and impregnated with algae with chitosan nanocomposite for the sorption of Malachite green dye from water. The algae with chitosan nanocomposite by a simple method and used as a recyclable and effective adsorbent for the removal of malachite green dye from aqueous solutions. Algae, chitosan, chitosan nanoparticle and algae with chitosan nanocomposite were characterized using different physicochemical methods. The functional groups and chemical compounds found in algae, chitosan, chitosan algae, chitosan nanoparticle, and chitosan nanoparticle with algae were identified using FTIR, SEM, and TGADTA/DTG techniques. The optimal adsorption conditions, different dosages, pH and Temperature the amount of algae with chitosan nanocomposite were determined. At optimized conditions and the batch equilibrium studies more than 99% of the dye was removed. The adsorption process data matched well kinetics showed that the reaction order for dye varied with pseudo-first order and pseudo-second order. Furthermore, the maximum adsorption capacity of the algae with chitosan nanocomposite toward malachite green dye reached as high as 15.5mg/g, respectively. Finally, multiple times reusing of algae with chitosan nanocomposite and removing dye from a real wastewater has made it a promising and attractive option for further practical applications.
Evolving Lifecycles with High Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) and 3-D...Joshua Orris
The incorporation of a 3DCSM and completion of HRSC provided a tool for enhanced, data-driven, decisions to support a change in remediation closure strategies. Currently, an approved pilot study has been obtained to shut-down the remediation systems (ISCO, P&T) and conduct a hydraulic study under non-pumping conditions. A separate micro-biological bench scale treatability study was competed that yielded positive results for an emerging innovative technology. As a result, a field pilot study has commenced with results expected in nine-twelve months. With the results of the hydraulic study, field pilot studies and an updated risk assessment leading site monitoring optimization cost lifecycle savings upwards of $15MM towards an alternatively evolved best available technology remediation closure strategy.
Evolving Lifecycles with High Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) and 3-D...
Decarbonisation agriculture
1. CAT Decarbonisation Series - climateactiontracker.org
WHAT’S ON THE TABLE? MITIGATING AGRICULTURAL
EMISSIONS WHILE ACHIEVING FOOD SECURITY
January 2018
• Mitigating emissions from agriculture is
key to achieve deep cuts in emissions in
line with the Paris Agreement’s long-
term goal of “net-zero” emissions.
• Options for emission reductions on the
supply side include efficiency
improvements, take-up of best practices
and innovative approaches in farming.
• Mitigation opportunities on the demand
side are equally important—e.g. in
transport, storage and consumption of
food—and this is where consumer
behaviour plays a major role.
• Changes in consumer behaviour,
resulting in substantial benefits for
public health, hold large potential for
deep reductions in agricultural non-CO2
emissions while ensuring the growing
demand for food worldwide can be met.
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture accounts for roughly 10% of global
GHG emissions, and as much as 50% of global
non-CO2 emissions, at 5–6 GtCO2e/year (US EPA
2014; Smith et al. 2014; FAOSTAT 2016a), but
contributes less than 2% to emissions related to
energy use (IEA 2016). Limiting agricultural
emissions must therefore focus on non-CO2
emissions: specifically, nitrous oxide (N2O) and
methane (CH4). Reducing these emissions is
critical for long-term temperature targets
(Gernaat et al. 2015).
World population is set to increase by more than
15% in the next 15 years (UN 2015). Food
consumption is rising quickly across the
developing world, while hundreds of millions of
people remain undernourished (FAO 2016).
How can agricultural emissions be reduced
while achieving the Sustainable Development
Goal (SDG) to end hunger, achieve food security
and improved nutrition, as well as promote
sustainable agriculture?
Achieving the Paris Agreement temperature
goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C, and
to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C, is
important for this objective, as the challenge of
providing enough food will be further
exacerbated by climate change itself. Rising
temperatures and changing rainfall patterns
could cause pest outbreaks, disrupt pollination,
make farm labour more difficult and reduce the
yields of certain crops, resulting in a rise in food
prices (Myers et al. 2017; Challinor et al. 2014).
Yield declines due to climate change are already
being observed in certain regions, and warming
above 1.5˚C–2˚C would raise the risks of severe
production losses substantially (World Bank
2013). Even between warming of 1.5°C and 2°C,
the difference in yield declines could be
significant in certain regions: local yield
reductions in wheat and maize in the tropics
could be up to two times lower under 1.5°C than
under 2°C (Schleussner et al. 2016).
While the rise in atmospheric CO2 may improve
productivity in high latitude regions, it may also
lower the protein and nutrient content of major
crops such as rice and wheat (Myers et al. 2014).
If warming is kept well below 2°C, adaptation in
agriculture may be able to compensate for some
of these impacts, and the faster global
emissions are mitigated and such impacts are
avoided, the lower the burden of such
adaptation.
To limit global warming to 1.5°C by the end of
the century, scientific models estimate that CO2
emissions from energy and industry will need to
reach net zero around 2050 (Rogelj et al. 2015).
Agricultural non-CO2 emissions cannot be
reduced to zero, but still need to be reduced as
much as possible to contribute to the goal of
net zero GHG emissions.
A preliminary reduction target for non-CO2
emissions mitigation in agriculture compatible
with a 2°C pathway has been identified by
Wollenberg et al. (2016) as around
1 GtCO2e/year (11%–18%) reduction by 2030
(and rising thereafter), compared with a
business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. Such a target
would effectively cap agriculture emissions at
just above today’s levels. A target compatible
with 1.5°C would be even more stringent: for
example, Frank et al. (2017) suggest that
mitigation of 2.7 GtCO2e/year would be
required by 2050 to meet this target, compared
with a BAU scenario.
This briefing looks at options for mitigating non-
CO2 emissions from agriculture from two angles:
first, we broadly consider the most important
categories of emissions and options for
mitigation “on the field,” and second, we look at
trends in consumer behaviour, and how these
may affect agricultural production and related
emissions in the future.
Importantly, agriculture-driven land-use change
also results in CO2 emissions, but these are not
KEYMESSAGES
2. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 2
usually classified under agriculture. Projections
show that in 2050, if business-as-usual continues,
emissions of about 7 GtCO2/year could come
from deforestation due to animal agriculture
(Bajželj et al. 2014); see the Annex for more.
CATEGORISING AGRICULTURE EMISSIONS
Sources of non-CO2 emissions in agriculture are
very diverse. The two main gases here are
nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). The
different categories according to IPCC
definitions (IPCC 2006; FAOSTAT 2016a) include
emissions from:
• Enteric fermentation: the production of
CH4 in the digestive system of ruminant
animals;
• Manure: the production of CH4 from
anaerobic decomposition, and of N2O
during (de)nitrification processes in the soil,
related to animal dung;
• Rice cultivation: the release of CH4 from
decomposition of organic matter in flooded
rice paddies;
• Synthetic fertiliser: the release of N2O
from (de)nitrification processes and
volatilisation / leaching processes in the soil
from ammonium or urea-containing
fertiliser;
• Crop residues: the release of N2O from
(de)nitrification in crops left on soils;
• Cultivation of organic soils: the release of
N2O from decomposition of organic matter
in soil drained/used for cultivation.
This multiplicity of emissions sources, plus the
fact that the agriculture sector differs hugely
between countries—with large-scale industrial
agriculture dominating in some and small-scale
subsistence farming in others—means that
there is no “one size fits all” approach of limiting
emissions from agriculture.
CHANGING FARMING PRACTICES
Globally, enteric fermentation and manure
management dominate the emission profiles of
the agricultural sector - as shown in Figure 1.
On a national level, emission profiles may show
various patterns (see Annex). In the EU, US and
China, a large share is due to synthetic fertiliser
usage. In South and East Asia, emissions from
rice cultivation contribute large shares. In
Indonesia, non-CO2 emissions from decom-
position of drained peatland for cultivation are
substantial, but globally they only represent a
minor share. (However, CO2 emissions from
drained peatland, usually classified under land-
use change, are substantive—see Annex.) Below,
we discuss mitigation options for emissions in
the agriculture sector in the four largest
categories.
Figure 1: Contributions to worldwide agricultural non-CO2
emissions in 2014. Data from (FAOSTAT 2016a).
Cattle are by far the largest contributor to
emissions from enteric fermentation, at an
estimated 73%, of which roughly three-quarters
are from non-dairy cattle (FAOSTAT 2016a). This
category of emissions can be influenced—to
some extent—by improved diet practices for
livestock, through diet additives that act as
methane inhibiting agents, and by obtaining
more efficient or less methane-intensive animals
through breeding (FAO 2014b; Smith et al.
2014).
According to (Smith et al. 2008), the full
technical mitigation potential lies in the order of
200 MtCO2/year by 2030, around 10% of
worldwide emissions from enteric fermentation.
Beyond such “technical” options, improved
health monitoring for cattle could help to
reduce meat waste and thus decrease emissions
(Smith et al. 2016).
Cattle are also the largest contributor to
emissions from manure, at 55% (FAOSTAT
2016a). Manure can lead to emissions in all
stages of the manure management process—
from livestock rearing, to storage and treatment,
to spreading over land.
For livestock rearing, the main way to limit N2O
emissions is to optimise the nitrogen content of
the animal feed.
For storage and treatment, emissions of CH4 can
be limited through preventing anaerobic
decomposition conditions with airtight covers,
or frequent turning / agitation of the manure /
slurry to reduce anaerobic zones (Chadwick et al.
2011).
But for most animals worldwide, excretion
occurs in the field and the listed “manure
handling opportunities” are not even relevant,
as few activities like storage or treatment take
place at all (Smith et al. 2008). According to
(Smith et al. 2008; Herrero et al. 2016), the full
technical potential for emissions reduction from
manure is of the order of 100 MtCO2e/year by
3. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 3
2030—less than 10% of global manure-related
emissions (FAOSTAT 2016a).
For both enteric and manure-related emissions,
deeper cuts can most realistically be obtained
through lower animal stocks, by either
sustainable intensification (increasing yield per
unit stock, so that the same demand can be
satisfied with lower stocks) or demand
reduction.
Emissions from synthetic fertilisers have seen
the strongest increase worldwide among the
major categories discussed here. Globally,
agricultural emissions increased by roughly 16%
between 1990 and 2014, but emissions from
fertiliser use grew twice as fast (see Annex).
The most recent increase in global synthetic
fertiliser use seems to have been accompanied
by a loss in efficiency, with more than 50% of
nitrogen added for fertilisation now being lost
to the environment, compared to close to 30%
in the 1960s. This implies that further increases
in fertiliser use would lead to a
“disproportionately low” increase in agricultural
productivity (Lassaletta et al. 2014). Improving
the efficiency of nitrogen use by reducing over-
application could therefore hold substantial
potential for emissions reduction—probably in
the order of 100 MtCO2e/year 1
—without
affecting food production, while also lessening
environmental concerns such as nutrient
pollution in water.
It has also been suggested that the relationship
between the intensity of fertiliser use and
emissions may be nonlinear, meaning that
limiting fertiliser usage has highest mitigation
potential in areas where it is already being over-
applied (Shcherbak et al. 2014). Other measures
to reduce fertilisation emissions include
applying biogas digestate (Baldé et al. 2016; Al
Seadi & Lukehurst 2012) and applying sequential
cropping instead of having fallow periods, using
the residual biomass as organic fertiliser
(Wittwer et al. 2016).
Rice cultivation makes up 10% of agricultural
non-CO2 emissions worldwide, more than 30% in
some countries, and plays a vital role in food
security. Reductions in emissions can be
achieved through draining rice paddies during
the wet season, and applying organic fertiliser
(e.g. residues from the previous season) during
the dry season instead of the wet season (Smith
et al. 2008; Qiu 2009).
1
Current emissions from fertiliser were 660 MtCO2e/year in 2014
(FAOSTAT 2016a), so lowering nitrogen loss back to 1960 levels
could save in the order of 100 MtCO2e/year based on current
emission levels.
Substantial emissions reductions have been
achieved in the past through such measures
(Qiu 2009), and the technical potential of rice
management practices is estimated to be in the
order of 200 MtCO2e/year by 2030 (Smith et al.
2008; Smith et al. 2014). This would represent
around 40% of total emissions from rice paddies
(FAOSTAT 2016a).
In addition to emissions savings, paddy drainage
also has significant benefits in the form of water
conservation and increased yields, the initial
reason for take-up in China (Li et al. 2002).
When we consider the total technical potential
of mitigation in the agricultural sector, we must
be mindful that an estimated 12% of global
farm area is tilled by smallholder farmers,
representing 84% of farms, with much higher
percentages in certain regions (smallholders
own 35%–40% of farm area in both South Asia
and Sub-Saharan Africa) (Lowder et al. 2016).
The barriers to a worldwide roll-out of
“alternative” farming practices are therefore
likely to be substantial, given that they would
need to be adopted by all farms, and indeed
several practices may not be appropriate for
smallholders.
While options for improved practices that can
reduce non-CO2 emissions do exist, and their
take-up could help strengthen resilience (Nordic
Council of Ministers 2017), research suggests
that their aggregate effect—under ambitious
assumptions of worldwide take-up—will achieve
less than the necessary reductions required for
compatibility with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C
temperature limit (Wollenberg et al. 2016;
Havlík et al. 2014). The absence of viable
opportunities for deep reductions in animal-
related emissions (almost 70% of agricultural
non-CO2 emissions) is of particular concern.
Recent research on achieving ambitious
mitigation in the agricultural sector in line with
the Paris Agreement has highlighted the risks
that poorly designed policies could pose for
food security. Frank et al. (2017) warn that a
GHG tax on agricultural products could lead to
food insecurity in some vulnerable regions if not
accompanied by social safety nets and if
regional differences are not considered. In order
to achieve ambitious emissions reductions while
ensuring that food remains affordable, smart,
socially progressive policies will be needed
alongside additional mitigation options in the
land use sector, such as soil organic carbon
sequestration (see Annex), and options on the
demand side, such as diet shifts and food waste
reduction (Frank et al. 2017). These demand
side options are discussed below.
4. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 4
CHANGING DIETS
With global population projected to increase by
15% between 2015 and 2030, the anticipated
rise in per capita calorie consumption in
developing countries means that total food
demand is expected to grow by even more
(Havlík et al. 2014). Providing the additional
food supply required to achieve food security,
while ensuring emissions mitigation targets are
met, is likely to require changes in consumption.
Figure 2 shows current average calorific
consumption levels for eight countries, and the
share of meat therein. Some countries are
below world average, mainly in South Asia and
Sub-Saharan Africa, where rates of
undernutrition are also most prevalent (IFPRI
2016), whereas others are consuming
significantly above the world average. The
average person in industrialised nations already
eats twice as much meat as is considered
healthy (Wellesley et al. 2015).
Figure 2: Total food consumption in 2011 in eight different
countries as compared to the world average. Data from
(FAOSTAT 2016b). The 230 kcal/day corresponds to approx.
80–160 g meat daily for a range of standard meat products;
see e.g. (USDA 2017).
The UK’s National Health Service indicates an
average range of calorie intake classified as a
“healthy, balanced diet” as 2000-
2500 kcal/cap/day (UK NHS 2016), with no more
than around 70 g/day of red and processed red
meat (note that the definition of “red meat”
usually does not include fish and poultry). 2
The health benefits of a switch to a low-
emissions, more plant-based diet should not be
underestimated—in both industrialised and
developing countries. Springmann et al. (2016)
show that a healthy diet with no more than 43 g
of red meat—and at least five portions of fruit
2
This is the average recommended intake per person, and should not
be compared with national averages. A national average of 2000-
2500 kcal/cap/day would still mean that some members of the
population are likely undernourished and others over-consume. Also,
data on consumption is likely to be slightly higher than actual per-
capita intake of nutrition, due to part of the food being thrown away.
and vegetables per day—could avoid five million
deaths a year from heart disease, stroke, cancer
and Type II diabetes globally by 2050, with
developing countries avoiding the greatest
number of deaths. An additional health benefit
could come from reducing reliance on industrial
animal farming. Many factory farms use
antibiotics to increase productivity, contributing
to drug resistance in humans and posing a
significant public health risk (Landers et al.
2012). Reducing antibiotic use, or consuming
less industrially-produced meat, could therefore
help alleviate the spread of antibiotic resistance.
The emissions savings associated with a global
switch to a healthy, low-emissions diet are
estimated at 30% of food-related emissions,
relative to continuing current dietary trends
(Springmann et al. 2016).
Further research is needed into the types of
low-carbon diet that are best for meeting
nutritional requirements in different regions. In
many cases, a large change may not be
necessary: research in France has shown that a
significant number of people are already self-
selecting diets that are nutritious and relatively
low in carbon, and a 30% reduction in emissions
from the average French diet could be achieved
without compromising on nutrition or
affordability (Perignon et al. 2017).
In aggregate, a global shift to healthier diets
could dramatically reduce agricultural emissions.
The scenarios investigated in Stehfest et al.
(2009) indicate that worldwide adoption of the
“Harvard diet”—which implies reductions in
meat consumption in the developed world and
increases in countries with protein-deficient
diets (Smith et al. 2013)—could bring about
reductions in non-CO2 emissions (compared to a
reference scenario without diet shifts) in the
order of 1.5 GtCO2e/year by 2030.
The finding that diet shifts can potentially have
higher mitigation impacts than technological
changes on the supply side is echoed by a
number of other studies (Bajželj et al. 2014;
Hedenus et al. 2014). Dietary changes could
even bend the agricultural emissions curve
downwards, something which technical
mitigation alone is not expected to do (Popp et
al. 2010). Further, Erb et al. (2016) show that
future pathways of human diets, and in
particular their meat content, are stronger
determinants of whether world food demand by
2050 can be met without causing deforestation
than e.g. assumptions on future cropland
availability, yield, and livestock feeding practices.
Clearly, transitioning to healthy diets can have
substantial and necessary benefits for climate
change mitigation, but implementing such a
transition requires careful consideration of local
5. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 5
contexts and nutritional needs. What
constitutes a healthy and sustainable diet in a
given region depends on several factors—the
levels of over-consumption and malnutrition,
local geographical and cultural contexts,
poverty levels, and the role of agriculture in
local livelihoods. Grazing animals can provide a
crucial source of income, and in some contexts
also deliver important environmental benefits:
manure can improve soil quality, and livestock
can consume crop residues that humans cannot
eat, potentially resulting in avoidance of other
types of emissions (Garnett 2009). Completely
cutting out animal agriculture is clearly unlikely
to be either feasible or desirable.
Although cattle are the largest contributor to
emissions from enteric fermentation and
manure, simply shifting “away from beef” does
not guarantee large reductions, as e.g. goat and
sheep meat have carbon intensities comparable
to beef (see Annex). Also, meat is not the only
high-emission food: enteric and manure-related
emissions make up roughly 50% of the total
carbon footprint of milk in the US (FAO 2014b),
and non-dairy cattle make up 17% of total cattle
stock and 25% of non-CO2 emissions from cattle
worldwide (FAOSTAT 2016a), so any “diet-shift”
scenario will need to include limiting dairy
consumption. This will be a challenge in the
context of rising milk demand. Demand growth
is highest in Asia (where over half of anticipated
global increase in demand by 2020 is expected
to occur), with growth rates in other developing
regions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, not far
behind (FAO 2014a; Cornall 2016).
Another important co-benefit of shifting to
more plant-based diets is that this would ease
stress on land use, which in turn can lead to
reduced land use CO2 emissions (see Annex).
Around 70% of global agricultural land is
currently being used as grazing land for
ruminants (Stehfest et al. 2009), with more land
used for grazing animals than for any other
single use.
Less than a third of animal husbandry occurs on
pasture unsuitable for cropping, or is fed by
crop residues or processing co-products. The
remaining 70% of livestock thus represents an
inefficient use of land and resources for food, as
the conversion from cereal to animal matter is
accompanied by substantial energetic losses—
e.g. for cattle, the conversion factor is 5–10 kg
cereals per kg animal weight (Garnett 2009).
A global shift to, for example, the “Harvard diet”
could therefore reduce land use demand by
more than one billion hectares, roughly the size
of the US (Stehfest et al. 2009), and this could
reduce food-related deforestation (and its
associated CO2 emissions)—or even allow the
natural regeneration of some areas of land,
leading to carbon sequestration.
Policy makers have historically been reluctant to
intervene in dietary choices, but the growing
prevalence of diet-related public health issues is
starting to change this. Research has shown that
citizens in industrialised countries expect their
governments to address unsustainable meat
consumption (Wellesley et al. 2015).
Some governments and government agencies
have introduced policies to encourage the
public towards more sustainable diets: China set
new guidelines in 2016, suggesting that meat
consumption should be halved from current
levels (to 40–75 g/day) (Wellesley et al. 2015).
The Netherlands suggests that high-carbon
meats should make up no more than
300 g/week (Voedingscentrum 2017). However,
further research is needed to better understand
how public policy can be used most effectively
to encourage changes in consumer and retailer
behaviour (Wellesley et al. 2015).
Market-based approaches are likely to be
necessary to achieve significant changes on the
short timescales required. For instance, a
fertiliser tax to combat over-application has
been tested (with varying success) in different
EU countries (WWF 2010; Bayramoglu & Chakir
2016). Another option is an emissions tax on
food commodities, with exemptions for healthy
foods. Springmann et al. (2017) suggest that
such a tax could reduce global food-related
emissions by almost 1 GtCO2e in 2020, mostly
from reductions in beef and dairy use, as well as
avoid up to 500,000 deaths. Crucially for the
public acceptability of such a scheme, the
revenues should be used to protect vulnerable
groups from food price increases and income
losses.
REDUCING FOOD WASTE
Over a third of the food we produce—about 1.3
billion tonnes each year—is lost (FAO 2013a).
Emissions associated with food waste are
already significant, and rising (Hiç et al. 2016).
According to the FAO, if food waste were a
country it would be the third largest GHG
emitter, with an estimated 2011 level of
3.5 GtCO2e/year (this includes CO2 emissions
from on-farm energy use, but excludes CO2
emissions from LULUCF, which would add
0.8 GtCO2/year) (FAO 2011).
The amount of food waste is related to a
country’s development stage (Hiç et al. 2016),
and industrialised nations have much higher per-
capita food wastage carbon footprints than
developing nations. This is partly because in
industrialised nations more waste occurs later in
the supply chain—at the retail and consumer
6. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 6
levels—while in developing countries most
waste occurs on-farm and during distribution.
The average diet is also important: more
emission-intensive diets incur more emission-
intensive waste. For example, while meat makes
up only 5% of total food waste, it contributes a
fifth of food waste emissions (FAO 2011).
Food waste and its carbon footprint is likely to
increase substantially. Hiç et al. (2016) look at
projected levels of food surplus—the extra food
available in a country beyond what is required to
feed the population—and estimate this could
be more than three times higher in 2050 than
in 2010. With a growing middle class producing
more household waste, and an anticipated 50%
rise in meat consumption by 2050 (based on
projected meat production in 2050, compared
with a 2011–13 baseline (FAOSTAT 2016a; FAO
2013b)), an increasing proportion of food waste
would come from high carbon intensity meat
and consumer waste without additional policies.
Reduction of food waste could have substantial
mitigation benefits, with potential non-CO2
emissions reductions of up to 2 GtCO2e by 2030
(Wollenberg et al. 2016), and between 1.3–
4.5 GtCO2e by 2050, compared with business-as-
usual (Bajželj et al. 2014). The uncertainty in
these estimates stems from uncertainty on
future diets, population size and agricultural
productivity (Wollenberg et al. 2016). This
reduction potential is likely to exceed the
mitigation potential of all currently available
supply-side non-CO2 mitigation options. It is also
compatible with the UN’s 12th
SDG, which calls
for food and agricultural waste to be halved.
Up to a third of household food waste may be
linked to date marking (European Commission
2016). While best-before dates play an
important role in reassuring consumers of the
quality of products throughout their shelf-life, a
European Commission study showed that less
than half of Europeans understand the meaning
of “use by” and “best before” labels. The
Commission is now considering how to alter
labelling requirements to reduce waste while
ensuring consumer safety. Several US states
have already eliminated unnecessary date labels,
e.g. New York City no longer requires labelling
for milk (ReFED 2017), which is safe to consume
long after its taste becomes unpalatable.
In developing countries, more efficient storage
and distribution systems are needed to reduce
on-farm and post-harvest losses. Fruit,
vegetables and meat can spoil quickly in hot
climates, and farmers with inadequate storage
may be forced to sell their produce even when
demand is low. Investment is needed to improve
roads, facilitate entry to markets, and develop
storage technologies (e.g. evaporative coolers,
plastic storage bags) (WRI 2013).
A substantial amount of food grown in sub-
Saharan Africa for export to Europe is wasted
before it reaches the shop floor because
European supermarkets reject it based on shape,
size or colour.
To minimise waste and protect farmers, some
countries (e.g. the UK) have made it illegal for
supermarkets to cancel orders without
compensating suppliers (Stuart 2009). Where
avoidance of food waste is not possible, the
next best option is to reuse it. Some policies
currently hinder the donation of excess food to
food banks and NGOs. To counter this, several
US states have put in place rules such as liability
protection for retailers donating leftover food
(ReFED 2017). Another way to reuse food waste
is feeding it to livestock. If animal scraps are
appropriately heat-treated they can be safely
fed to pigs, but many countries have policies
that prohibit this use of animal products in feed
because of concerns that disease epidemics
among animals could arise if animal scraps are
not properly treated. This is starting to change:
some US states (Connecticut, North Carolina)
allow animal food waste to be fed to swine, if
heat treated (ReFED 2017). In China, maggots
are used to manage food waste, feeding on it
before themselves being processed into animal
feed (Ehret 2017).
CONCLUSION
To keep global warming within the limits
specified by the Paris Agreement, agriculture
will be a key factor, given the need for achieving
food security for a growing population. This
briefing summarises emission abatement
options on the supply side, e.g. through
changed farming practices, and on the demand
side, e.g. through shifts in consumer habits. The
total mitigation potential on both sides is
significant.
There are physical limitations to what can be
achieved on the supply side, and opportunities
are scattered. Demand side mitigation can
achieve large reductions without compromising
global nutritional health; see Figure 3.
The national emissions reduction commitments
made under the Paris Agreement give relatively
little emphasis to agriculture, especially on the
demand side—currently there is no mention of
reducing food waste or changing diets, even
though most NDCs consider mitigation in
agriculture in some way (Pauw et al. 2016).
The close interdependence between supply and
demand—with mitigation potential on one side
being dependent on mitigation action on the
other—means that both must be addressed.
These topics will need to enter the policy
debate more prominently in the future.
7. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 7
Businesses need to step up mitigation action in
their supply chains to tackle both sides, and
multilateral coordination efforts such as the
EU’s Effort Sharing scheme should be pursued
to drive down agricultural emissions on a
regional scale.
In addition to research and innovation in food
production and widespread adoption of best
practice techniques, policies to e.g. subsidise
low-GHG products or discourage high-GHG ones
and to promote healthy diets without
overconsumption are likely to be needed.
Without demand-side changes, emission
reductions in line with the Paris Agreement may
be out of reach.
Figure 3: Infographic showing the multiplicity of emission mitigation potential on the supply side and demand side of agriculture. The bars
show the estimated mitigation potential (in GtCO2e/year) by 2030 per category; see text for details.
8. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 8
ANNEX: SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
AGRICULTURAL NON-CO2 EMISSIONS BY COUNTRY
In Figure 4, we show the relative contribution of different categories to total agricultural non-CO2 emissions for
various countries, and a bar chart giving the absolute values of these emissions, as per FAOSTAT data. Together,
these countries accounted for 58% of global agricultural non-CO2 emissions in 2014.
Figure 4: Pie chart for the different categories in agricultural non-CO2 emissions for eight countries, and a bar chart showing total
agricultural non-CO2 emissions. Data from (FAOSTAT 2016a).
EMISSION FACTORS OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS
Around 73% of emissions from enteric fermentation, and 55% of emissions from manure (including manure
management, manure applied to soils, and manure left on pastures) is attributable to cattle (excluding buffalos),
according to FAOSTAT data (FAOSTAT 2016a). Cattle stock—measured in number of animals—is, however, only
slightly larger than the number of sheep, goats and swine. This is shown in Figure 5.
These numbers imply that the emission factor of enteric and manure-related emissions, measured in tCO2e per
animal per year, is around seven times higher for cattle than for sheep, goats and swine (who together account
for 93% of global animal stock excl. poultry). (Note that non-dairy cattle make up about 83% of total cattle stock.)
However, calculating specific emissions on a per-animal basis is not a fair comparison in discussions that concern
diet shifting, as a cow will yield much more meat than a sheep or a goat. Correcting for typical animal weight, the
ratio of meat obtained per unit of live weight, and the typical protein content per unit of meat weight, shows
that the emissions per unit of potential meat yield is not as vastly different across these animal types as a first
glance at overall emissions may suggest (Wellesley et al. 2015; FAO n.d.).
For instance, small ruminants (e.g. sheep, goats) have emissions intensities in the same range as cattle, and small
ruminants’ milk has a higher intensity on average than does cows’ milk. All are substantially higher than pork and
especially chicken meat, which is in the same order of magnitude as soybean, often used in meat alternatives.
9. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 9
Figure 5: Data from (FAOSTAT 2016a) indicate that cattle are responsible for 73% of global enteric fermentation emissions (ca.
1.5 GtCO2e/year) and 55% of manure-related emissions (ca. 0.76 GtCO2e/year). Measured in number of animals, they represent only
29% of total animal stock excl. poultry.
In this context, it is important to note that “beef does not equal beef”, as there may be substantial differences,
for instance, between carbon intensities of different methods of feeding cattle, e.g. grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef,
the latter of which produces fewer enteric emissions per unit live weight (Desjardins et al. 2012), but may require
more fertiliser and more irrigation water (Eshel et al. 2014).
We note that the above data from FAOSTAT are based on 2006 IPCC guidelines for emissions inventories. The
input information for these guidelines reflects earlier decades and may no longer be up to date with current
practices of livestock rearing. A recent study (Wolf et al. 2017) provides revised bottom-up estimates of carbon
fluxes from agricultural systems, showing that emission factors from enteric fermentation and manure
management may be considerably higher (though with substantial regional differences) than the 2006 IPCC
guidelines suggest.
Alternative non-plant based low-emissions foods are also being explored. The FAO has promoted the inclusion of
insects in diets with low environmental impact (van Huis et al. 2013), and R&D into the development of in vitro
meat is ongoing, though still far from industrial scales (Sharma et al. 2015).
FERTILISER EMISSIONS
The growth in emissions from fertiliser, referenced in the second section of this briefing, as compared to that of
overall non-CO2 agricultural emissions, is displayed in Figure 6. It can be seen that the increase of fertiliser
emissions was more than twice that of overall emissions worldwide, and much more in various countries, up to
more than seven times in Brazil.
Figure 6: Growth in synthetic fertiliser emissions exceeded that of overall agricultural emissions in many countries. Data from
(FAOSTAT 2016a).
10. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 10
Among Annex I countries, the highest relative increase in synthetic fertiliser emissions was in New Zealand,
where total agricultural emissions did not increase between 1990 and 2014, but fertiliser emissions increased by
more than 600% (FAOSTAT 2016a).
LAND-USE CHANGE AND CO2 EMISSIONS
This briefing has looked specifically at non-CO2 emissions—namely CH4 and N2O—as net CO2 emissions from
agricultural systems are assumed to be negligible (Smith et al. 2014). However, agriculture-driven land-use
change (usually classified under land-use change emissions, not agriculture) contributes a substantial amount of
CO2 emissions. Therefore, when evaluating different non-CO2 mitigation options, it is also important to consider
the effect that these will have on land-use change.
Animal agriculture is the single biggest use of agricultural land, making it a major driver of deforestation, and
Bajželj et al. (2014) project that in 2050, if business-as-usual continues, about 7 Gt of CO2 emissions could come
from deforestation due to animal agriculture. These land-use change emissions can be reduced through a
reduction in demand. A shift to more plant-based diets would substantially reduce the amount of land required
for food production, although expansion into pristine tropical rainforest would be likely to continue unless
preventative policies are put in place (Bajželj et al. 2014). However, transitions in the supply side towards more
productive systems can also have a significant impact on land-use change emissions: Havlík et al. (2014) suggest
that over 85% of the emissions reductions that could be achieved through policies for sustainable intensification
would be in CO2 emissions from land-use change, rather than non-CO2 emissions.
Agriculture-based mitigation of CO2 emissions could also be possible through the adoption of soil management
and agroforestry techniques that sequester carbon in soil and vegetation. However, the high uncertainties in
estimates of the potential for such sequestration—especially under the effects of climate change—mean that
these are not included in many mitigation estimates, e.g. Wollenberg et al. (2016), although Frank et al. (2017)
suggest that taking into account soil organic carbon sequestration in farmland is an important option for
reducing adverse impacts on food affordability that ambitious agricultural emissions mitigation might have.
The amount of land used for agriculture and the associated CO2 and non-CO2 emissions depend on a range of
interacting assumptions, and are therefore difficult to project into the future. Underlying socio-economic
conditions, such as future food demand, agricultural productivity, trade, choice of production systems, dietary
patterns, and the use of land-based mitigation measures have a strong influence on future agricultural emissions
and land-use dynamics (Popp et al. 2016), which means that we cannot treat any of these factors in isolation.
11. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 11
AUTHORS
NewClimate Institute
Sebastian Sterl
Sofia Gonzales-Zuñiga
Hanna Fekete
Climate Analytics
Claire Fyson
Jasmin Cantzler
Ursula Fuentes
Matt Beer
Ecofys
Yvonne Deng
Lindee Wong
Daan Peters
This work was funded by the ClimateWorks Foundation
ENDNOTES
Bajželj, B. et al., 2014. Importance of food-demand management for climate
mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4, pp.924–929. Available at:
doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2353.
Baldé, H. et al., 2016. Methane emissions from digestate at an agricultural
biogas plant. Bioresource Technology, 216, pp.914–922. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960852416308483
[Accessed June 23, 2017].
Bayramoglu, B. & Chakir, R., 2016. The impact of high crop prices on the use of
agro-chemical inputs in France: A structural econometric analysis. Land
Use Policy, 55, pp.204–211. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264837716302678
[Accessed June 27, 2017].
Chadwick, D. et al., 2011. Manure management: Implications for greenhouse gas
emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 166, pp.514–531.
Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377840111001556
[Accessed April 6, 2017].
Challinor, A.J. et al., 2014. A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change
and adaptation. Nature Clim. Change, 4(4), pp.287–291.
Cornall, J., 2016. Big increase in UHT milk consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Available at: http://www.dairyreporter.com/Markets/Big-increase-in-
UHT-milk-consumption-in-Sub-Saharan-Africa [Accessed September 5,
2017].
Desjardins, R.L. et al., 2012. Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle. Sustainability, 4,
pp.3279–3301. Available at: doi:10.3390/su4123279.
Ehret, L., 2017. In China, maggots finish plates, and food waste. Available at:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-china-maggots-finish-plates-food.html
[Accessed June 14, 2017].
Erb, K.-H. et al., 2016. Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the
world without deforestation. Nature Communications, 7, p.11382.
Available at: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ncomms11382
[Accessed April 18, 2017].
Eshel, G. et al., 2014. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive
nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United
States. PNAS, 111(33). Available at:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996.full.pdf [Accessed July 26,
2017].
European Commission, 2016. European Commission date marking infographic.
Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu_actions_
date_marking_infographic_en.pdf.
FAO, 2013a. Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources. Summary
Report, Available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf.
FAO, 2014a. Future demand for dairy products in Asia expected to soar –
sustainability and shared growth with smallholder producers vital.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/asiapacific/news/detail-
events/en/c/232252/ [Accessed September 5, 2017].
FAO, GLEAM 2.0 - Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation
potential. Available at: http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/#c303617.
FAO, 2011. Global food losses and food waste, Available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf.
FAO, 2014b. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production,
Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3288e/i3288e.pdf.
FAO, 2016. OECD-FAO Agricultural outlook 2016-2025, Available at:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/oecd-fao-
agricultural-outlook-2016_agr_outlook-2016-en.
FAO, 2013b. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision, Available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap106e/ap106e.pdf.
FAOSTAT, 2016a. FAOSTAT-Emissions Agriculture. Available at:
http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/G1/*/E [Accessed November 10, 2016].
FAOSTAT, 2016b. Food Balance Sheets. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS.
Frank, S. et al., 2017. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without
compromising food security? Environmental Research Letters, 12(10),
p.105004. Available at: http://stacks.iop.org/1748-
9326/12/i=10/a=105004?key=crossref.000b6ab1748d1b0af07f66e0f4
96f0a3 [Accessed October 5, 2017].
Garnett, T., 2009. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and
options for policy makers. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(4),
pp.491–503.
Gernaat, D.E.H.J. et al., 2015. Understanding the contribution of non-carbon
dioxide gases in deep mitigation scenarios. Global Environmental
Change, 33, pp.142–153. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378015000709
[Accessed July 26, 2017].
Havlík, P. et al., 2014. Climate change mitigation through livestock system
transitions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 111(10), pp.3709–14. Available at:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/10/3709.abstract.
Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S. & Johansson, D.J.A., 2014. The importance of reduced
meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change
targets. Climatic Change, 124(1–2), pp.79–91.
Herrero, M. et al., 2016. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock
sector. Nature Clim. Change, 6(5), pp.452–461. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925.
Hiç, C. et al., 2016. Food Surplus and Its Climate Burdens. Environ. Sci. Technol.,
50(8), pp.4269–4277.
van Huis, A. et al., 2013. Edible Insects - Future prospects for food and feed security,
Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf.
IEA, 2016. Energy Statistics and Balances, Paris, France.
IFPRI, 2016. 2016 Global Nutrition Report - From Promise to Impact: Ending
Maltrution by 2030, Available at:
http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/130354/fi
lename/130565.pdf [Accessed April 18, 2017].
IPCC, 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 4
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Available at:
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html [Accessed
May 4, 2017].
Landers, T.F. et al., 2012. A review of antibiotic use in food animals: perspective,
policy, and potential. Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974),
127(1), pp.4–22.
Lassaletta, L. et al., 2014. 50 year trends in nitrogen use efficiency of world
cropping systems: the relationship between yield and nitrogen input to
cropland. Environmental Research Letters, 9(10), p.105011. Available at:
http://stacks.iop.org/1748-
9326/9/i=10/a=105011?key=crossref.6c208197bc650b5a6a022407ac7
2e570 [Accessed April 7, 2017].
Li, C. et al., 2002. Reduced methane emissions from large-scale changes in water
management of China’s rice paddies during 1980-2000. Geophysical
Research Letters, 29(20), pp.33-1-33–4. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2002GL015370 [Accessed April 7, 2017].
Lowder, S.K., Skoet, J. & Raney, T., 2016. The Number, Size, and Distribution of
Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide. World
Development, 87, pp.16–29. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15002703
[Accessed April 18, 2017].
Myers, S.S. et al., 2017. Climate Change and Global Food Systems: Potential
Impacts on Food Security and Undernutrition. Annu. Rev. Public Health,
38, pp.259–77.
Myers, S.S. et al., 2014. Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition. Nature,
510(7503), pp.139–42.
Nordic Council of Ministers, 2017. Mitigation & Adaptation Synergies in the NDCs,
Available at: http://norden.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1097909/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
12. CAT Decarbonisation Series | Agriculture | climateactiontracker.org 12
Pauw, P. et al., 2016. NDC Explorer. Available at: http://klimalog.die-
gdi.de/ndc/#NDCExplorer/worldMap?INDC??climatechangemitigation??
?cat7 [Accessed June 26, 2017].
Perignon, M. et al., 2017. Improving diet sustainability through evolution of food
choices: review of epidemiological studies on the environmental impact
of diets. Nutrition reviews, 75(1), pp.2–17.
Popp, A. et al., 2016. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways.
Global Environmental Change, 42, pp.331–345.
Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H. & Bodirsky, B., 2010. Food consumption, diet shifts
and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural
production. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), pp.451–462. Available
at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378010000075
[Accessed April 18, 2017].
Qiu, J., 2009. China cuts methane emissions from rice fields. Available at:
https://www.nature.com/news/2009/090818/full/news.2009.833.html
[Accessed April 6, 2017].
ReFED, 2017. State Policy : ReFED | Rethink Food Waste. Available at:
http://www.refed.com/tools/food-waste-policy-finder/.
Rogelj, J. et al., 2015. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century
warming to below 1.5 °C. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), pp.519–527.
Available at: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2572
[Accessed October 19, 2016].
Schleussner, C.-F. et al., 2016. Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant
limits to global warming: the case of 1.5. Earth Syst. Dynam, 7, pp.327–
351. Available at: www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/327/2016/ [Accessed
June 26, 2017].
Al Seadi, T. & Lukehurst, C., 2012. Quality management of digestate from biogas
plants used as fertiliser, Available at:
http://task37.ieabioenergy.com/files/daten-redaktion/download/publi-
task37/digestate_quality_web_new.pdf.
Sharma, S., Thind, S.S. & Kaur, A., 2015. In vitro meat production system: why and
how? Journal of Food Science and Technology, 52(12), pp.7599–7607.
Available at: doi:10.1007/s13197-015-1972-3.
Shcherbak, I., Millar, N. & Robertson, G.P., 2014. Global metaanalysis of the
nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions to fertilizer
nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 111(25), pp.9199–204. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24927583 [Accessed April 7,
2017].
Smith, P. et al., 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In O.
Edenhofer & P.-M. R, eds. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Available
at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf.
Smith, P. et al., 2008. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1492),
pp.789–813. Available at:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rstb.2007.2184
%5Cnpapers2://publication/doi/10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.03.053.
Smith, P. et al., 2013. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be
achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?
Global Change Biology, 19(8), pp.2285–2302.
Smith, P. et al., 2016. Science-based GHG emissions targets for agriculture and
forestry commodities, Available at:
http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-uni-aberdeen-pbl-2016-
science-targets-agriculture-forestry.pdf.
Springmann, M. et al., 2016. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate
change cobenefits of dietary change. PNAS, 113(15), pp.4146–4151.
Springmann, M. et al., 2017. Mitigation potential and global health impacts from
emissions pricing of food commodities. Nature Climate Change, 7,
pp.69–74.
Stehfest, E. et al., 2009. Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change,
95(1–2), pp.83–102. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6 [Accessed April
17, 2017].
Stuart, T., 2009. Waste : uncovering the global food scandal, W.W. Norton & Co.
UK NHS, 2016. What should my daily intake of calories be? Available at:
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1126.aspx?categoryid=51 [Accessed
April 18, 2017].
UN, 2015. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Available at:
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DVD/ [Accessed November 12, 2015].
US EPA, 2014. Global Mitigation of Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030,
Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/MAC_Re
port_2014-Exec_Summ.pdf.
USDA, 2017. USDA Food Composition Databases. Available at:
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list?SYNCHRONIZER_TOKEN=3ccf
b8aa-5dee-4c92-973d-
f9bcb2645ce0&SYNCHRONIZER_URI=%2Fndb%2Fsearch%2Flist&qt=&
ds=&qlookup=&fgcd=&manu= [Accessed July 27, 2017].
Voedingscentrum, 2017. De Schijf van Vijf: Vis, peulvruchten, vlees, ei, noten en
zuivel. Available at: http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/gezond-eten-
met-de-schijf-van-vijf/wat-staat-er-in-de-vakken-van-de-schijf-van-
vijf/vis-peulvruchten-vlees-ei-noten-en-zuivel.aspx [Accessed April 27,
2017].
Wellesley, L., Happer, C. & Froggatt, A., 2015. Changing Climate, Changing Diets
Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption, Available at:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications
/research/CHHJ3820 Diet and climate change 18.11.15_WEB_NEW.pdf.
Wittwer, R.A. et al., 2016. Cover crops support ecological intensification of
arable cropping systems. Scientific Reports, 7, p.41911. Available at:
doi:10.1038/srep41911.
Wolf, J., Asrar, G.R. & West, T.O., 2017. Revised methane emissions factors and
spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock. Carbon
Balance and Management, 12(1), p.16. Available at:
http://cbmjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13021-017-
0084-y [Accessed October 5, 2017].
Wollenberg, E. et al., 2016. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the
2 °C target. Global Change Biology. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/gcb.13340.
World Bank, 2013. Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and
the Case for Resilience, Available at:
https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/18206.
WRI, 2013. Reducing food loss and waste, working paper. Available at:
http://pdf.wri.org/reducing_food_loss_and_waste.pdf.
WWF, 2010. Handlungsempfehlungen zur Minderung von stickstoffbedingten
Treibhausgasemissionen in der Landwirtschaft. Available at:
https://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-
PDF/100720_Stickstoffbroschuere.pdf.