Abstract
The global agrifood system is a major contributor to climate change and requires a deep and broad transformation. This system generates nearly one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, causing disastrous consequences for the planet and societies. These escalating emissions imperil the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C global heating limit, necessitating urgent mitigation measures and a fundamental change in how the world produces and consumes food. Agrifood emissions are highly concentrated within the top 20 global emitters, which mostly are middle-income countries (MICs). These top emitters generate about two-thirds of all agrifood system emissions, and this share is growing. Low-income countries (LICs), by contrast, have contributed the least to global emissions but bear the brunt of their negative consequences. High-income countries (HICs) have shaped the emissions-intensive way that food is produced and consumed, a way emulated by MICs, and increasingly by some LICs, to the detriment of the planet. The agrifood system’s transformation to net zero, if not done carefully, can generate trade-offs and potential costs—but the costs of inaction are even higher. The agrifood system must deliver many benefits at once. It must feed and nourish the global population while providing jobs and economic opportunities, all without damaging the planet or contributing to global heating. If the work is not done correctly, focusing on one element could come at the cost of another element. For example, applying agrifood system mitigation practices could potentially lead to lower agricultural production and higher food prices, much like higher food production led to land degradation and high emissions in the first place. The current food system causes trillions of dollars in negative externalities every year and has pushed the planet past two-thirds of its operating boundaries, exceeding the biosphere’s integrity and water loss limits, among others. Moreover, an agrifood system transformation will likely encounter political and cultural headwinds from agricultural producers—who are often already struggling—and consumers who will need to make behavioral changes.
Generated Summary
This report presents a global framework for mitigating the agrifood system’s contributions to climate change, a system that accounts for nearly one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The study focuses on identifying solutions that can reduce agrifood emissions while simultaneously advancing global food security, economic growth, climate resilience, and inclusion. The study employs a country-driven approach, categorizing countries into high-, middle-, and low-income groups to identify tailored opportunities for action. The research methodology includes data analysis, cost-effectiveness assessments, and a review of various climate-smart agricultural practices. The report highlights the need for substantial investments and policy changes to transform the agrifood system and underscores the potential of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) to achieve multiple benefits. The transition to net zero agrifood systems requires a multifaceted approach involving investments, incentives, information, innovation, institutions, and inclusion.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The agrifood system is responsible for 30.8% of total global GHG emissions, averaging around 16 gigatons annually.
- The agrifood sector emits about 16 gigatons of greenhouse gases (GHGs) per year, about a third of all global emissions, and is projected to keep growing.
- The Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C by 2050 becomes impossible if this sector does not reduce emissions.
- Three-quarters of agrifood emissions come from developing countries, including two-thirds from middle-income countries.
- Mitigation finance for the agrifood sector was only 4.3% of global climate finance in all sectors.
- Annual investments in reducing agrifood emissions need to increase by an estimated 18 times, to $260 billion a year, to halve current agrifood emissions by 2030.
- The study estimates that benefits in health, economic, and environmental terms could be as much as $4.3 trillion in 2030, a 16-to-1 return on investment costs.
- The costs of inaction are even higher than the potential trade-offs.
- High-income countries have the highest per capita agrifood system emissions, with low-income countries catching up quickly.
- High-income countries can help the developing world reduce agrifood emissions through technology and climate finance.
- Middle-income countries have great opportunities to cut their agrifood emissions.
- Low-income countries can bypass a high-emissions development path, seizing climate-smart opportunities for greener, more competitive economies.
- Fifteen large, mostly middle-income, countries account for 62 percent of the world’s cost-effective mitigation potential.
- Eleven of these countries are MICs.
- The global agrifood system is responsible for significantly higher GHG emissions: on average, 16 billion metric tons (or gigatons) of CO₂ equivalent per year, or about 31 percent of the world’s total GHG emissions.
- The global agrifood system’s energy demands are highest in HICs and are on the rise globally, but alternative low-emission energy sources provide a counterbalance.
- Demand for animal-source diets accounts for almost 60 percent of total agrifood emissions across all emissions categories.
- Cost-effective land use mitigation measures could avoid 5 GtCO₂eq emissions per year in MICs alone (6.5 GtCO2eq globally).
- The technical mitigation potential of changing diets is nearly 2.3 Gt CO₂eq per year, including 1.4 GtCO₂eq per year from cost-effective options.
Other Important Findings
- The study emphasizes climate-smart agriculture (CSA) as an approach to prioritizing solutions.
- This report shows that the agrifood system has many cost-effective mitigation options.
- The biggest supply-side contributions to agrifood system emissions come from eight key emissions categories.
- GHG emissions from the agrifood system are significantly higher than previously thought.
- The 15 countries by density of mitigation potential are Maldives (MIC), Brunei Darussalam (HIC), Bangladesh (MIC), Indonesia (MIC), Viet Nam (MIC), etc.
- HICs can decrease consumer demand for emissions-intensive, animal-source foods by fully pricing environmental and health externalities, repurposing subsidies, and promoting sustainable food options.
- The report suggests that high-income countries have the greatest relative opportunities to contribute to net zero agrifood emissions.
- The largest share of agrifood system emissions come from farm gate processes (45.4%) and pre- and post-production processes (33.8%).
- The pathway to cost-effective decarbonization is much narrower for the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is also heavily forested but has significantly less income per capita and less meat production and consumption.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study team recognizes that agrifood mitigation solutions will differ for every country, even among countries of the same income categories.
- For example, a 20 percent food price increase would decrease that food’s carbon footprint by up to 19 percent.
- More generally, mitigating the short-term risks also requires technical solutions such as strengthening land use regulations to protect forests and other natural areas.
- They often lack economic incentives to save water; for example, farmers pay flat rates to irrigation agencies, and the payments are not tied to water use volumes.
Conclusion
The agrifood system presents a critical opportunity to address climate change, but the current trajectory is unsustainable. The report provides a roadmap for transforming the agrifood system through concerted action, emphasizing the need for immediate implementation of cost-effective mitigation practices. The report identifies opportunities for different income groups to contribute to net zero emissions. High-income countries should focus on curbing energy emissions, assisting developing nations, and promoting low-emission diets, while middle-income countries can harness opportunities to curb land use change, adopt low-emission farming practices, and clean up pre- and post-production processes. Low-income countries can forge a low-emissions development path. Achieving these objectives necessitates a collaborative approach. The report’s findings highlight that the agrifood system’s transformation is not only achievable but also presents significant economic and societal benefits, including enhanced food security, improved livelihoods, and greater resilience. The report emphasizes that policies must be clearly communicated, and that governments should partner with affected communities to support marginalized groups. Finally, the study highlights that the costs of inaction significantly outweigh the costs of action, underscoring the urgency and the potential for a better, more sustainable agrifood system.