The natural, political, cultural and social conditions vary greatly depending on the region of the world. It therefore makes sense to take a closer look at individual countries on different continents. The potential for ambitious climate action in agriculture was analysed for Egypt, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Great Britain, Indonesia, New Zealand, South Africa and the USA. In addition, selected mitigation measures were examined in depth and quantified, and obstacles and barriers to the implementation of the mitigation options were identified.
Summary of results
The most suitable mitigation options vary from country to country and depend on factors such as local climate, main agricultural products and existing agricultural systems. For each of the 10 individual countries, national conditions and current mitigation plans were examined to identify where additional mitigation potential exists. To this end, a qualitative analysis of the characteristics and circumstances of the agricultural sector in each of the selected countries was conducted, based on existing emission profiles for agricultural activities, socio-economic background, trade and employment data, current national climate policies, the vulnerability of the agricultural sector to the effects of global warming, and trends in food consumption and waste.
Sources of emissions in agriculture vary from country to country, but common patterns emerge, with emissions from livestock farming (enteric fermentation), manure management, manure applied to agricultural land and energy consumption on farms being the most significant contributors to agricultural emissions in all countries, and fermentation often being the largest source. In countries where rice is a staple food and is grown extensively, emissions from rice cultivation account for a large proportion of total agricultural emissions (e.g. China, Indonesia, Egypt). Emissions from crop production mainly come from the use of synthetic fertilisers. In most of the countries analysed, farmers currently over-fertilise their fields, partly due to the low cost of fertilisers as a result of government subsidies, which leads to significant nutrient losses and corresponding environmental pollution and emissions.
In some cases, LULUCF emissions (land use, land use change and forestry) can completely overshadow agricultural emissions. Emissions from land use change are generally driven by deforestation to expand agriculture. In the case of Indonesia, this also includes the drainage and burning of peatlands. Of the ten countries studied, emissions from deforestation are particularly relevant for Indonesia and Brazil, but also for Argentina and the United States.
The relevance and potential of individual measures vary both regionally and nationally. These depend, among other things, on the main agricultural products, the degree of intensification of production systems, climatic conditions and the need to adapt to climate change, cultural and socio-economic conditions, and the nature of agricultural trade. Especially in countries where food security is not guaranteed for the entire population, any mitigation measure must be considered in the context of national development priorities.
Three main factors determine where the greatest mitigation potential lies in a country:
• the main sources of emissions in the country
• the footprint of existing agricultural systems in terms of their emission intensities (tCO2e/tonne of product)
• the sustainability of production systems
Such production systems are often associated with high resource use, which causes emissions in other sectors (e.g. fertiliser production, energy consumption on the farm) or leads to higher indirect emissions through increased fertiliser use and/or feed production for livestock farming, including emissions from deforestation for land use.
Stopping agricultural expansion, which leads to deforestation, particularly in tropical countries (e.g. Brazil and Indonesia), offers the greatest potential for mitigation. However, reducing emissions from enteric fermentation also offers considerable mitigation potential, particularly through demand-side measures to reduce domestic consumption of animal products. Enteric fermentation is a key source of emissions in most countries, including emerging economies that are heavily dependent on animal product exports for their economies. While the reduction potential of certain agroecological practices such as cover crops and improved crop rotation is considered to be rather limited based on the literature, they nevertheless offer numerous additional benefits, for example by promoting adaptation to the effects of climate change. In addition, these are measures that can be implemented on a large scale without significant disadvantages or risks.
Furthermore, land-based mitigation measures that increase carbon stocks on agricultural land are an attractive option for climate action and have a fairly high potential to create additional sinks. These include, for example, the restoration of grasslands and agroforestry/silvopastoralism, which combines woody plants with grazing land and livestock farming. However, there are many risks and uncertainties regarding their effective implementation. Activities to store carbon in biomass should not replace the decarbonisation required in the agricultural sector to achieve climate targets and emission pathways compatible with 1.5 °C.
In addition to reducing greenhouse gases in agricultural production, it is essential to emphasise that a sustainable path to limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not feasible without changes in dietary patterns, mainly in industrialised countries.
