BACKGROUND PAPER

Opportunities and Challenges

During Low-CarbonTransition :
A Perspective From Asia’s
Agriculture Sector

Dil Rahut, Davaatseren Narmandakh, Xu He, Yixin Yao,

and Shu Tian

DISCLAIMER
This background paper was prepared for the report Asian Development Outlook Thematic Report 2023.
It is made available here to communicate the results of the underlying research work with the least possible
delay. The manuscript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures
appropriate to formally-edited texts.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Asian Development Bank (ADB), its Board of Governors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this document and accepts no responsibility for any
consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that
they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

Any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or use of the term “country” in
this document, is not intended to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
Boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this document do not imply any
judgment on the part of the ADB concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance
of such boundaries.
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES DURING LOW-CARBON TRANSITION:
A PERSPECTIVE FROM ASIA’S AGRICULTURE SECTOR

Dil Rahut, Davaatseren Narmandakh, and Yixin Yao

Asian Development Bank Institute

Xu He
China Center for Agricultural Policy, Peking University

Shu Tian
Asian Development Bank

1
 Abstract

Climate change because of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a significant challenge facing
humanity. Failure to take action to reduce GHG emissions would be catastrophic to life on earth,
livelihood, and socioeconomic progress that humanities achieved so far. Agriculture is a victim as
well as a perpetrator of climate change. The agricultural system depends on weather conditions;
hence, agro-based livelihoods and food security are highly vulnerable to climate change.
Agriculture, forestry, and other land use sectors contribute to about a quarter of GHG emissions,
and Asia has the largest share of global agriculture, forestry, and other land use emissions.
Therefore, agriculture and allied sectors should play an important role in the global efforts to
achieve net zero carbon emissions. Numerous GHG mitigation strategies for the agricultural
system are available, which include dietary changes, reducing food loss and waste, efficient use of
resources (especially fertilizer), use of renewable energy in agriculture, soil carbon sequestration,
reducing enteric fermentation, reducing methane emissions from rice cultivation, and managing
manure to reduce GHG. However, the challenge is the investment that is required to scale up these
strategies to more than 500 million smallholder farmers. Further, some of these strategies may
adversely impact the yield, food security, livelihood loss, and foreign exchange export earnings of
developing economies that are dependent on agriculture. Additionally, some government subsidies
that are not climate-, environment-, and natural resources-friendly should be reallocated into
sustainable and climate-smart agriculture. Therefore, the agriculture sector’s net zero carbon
emission strategy in developing economies should be driven by technology and implemented
gradually with financial and knowledge support from the government and international
organizations.
Note

In this report, “$” refers to United States dollars.

2
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Agriculture is both a victim and a culprit of climate change, yet it has the potential to play a critical
role in the fight against climate change. It has been noted that climate change will increasingly put
pressure on food production and access, especially in vulnerable regions, undermining food
security and nutrition. An increase in frequency, intensity, and severity of droughts, floods,
heatwaves, and continued sea level rise will increase risks to food security in vulnerable regions,
calling for an urgent need to invest in greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation options and adaptation to
climate change.

GHG emission from agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) includes nitrous oxide from
the application of synthetic fertilizer, manure to soils and dropped on pastures, and from manure
management, methane (CH4) from rice cultivation, enteric fermentation, and manure management,
carbon dioxide emissions from above- and below-ground biomass changes and dead organic
matter related to land use changes and forest management, as well as soil carbon emissions from
deforestation/afforestation.

Mitigation strategies, including dietary changes, reducing food loss and waste, sustainable
intensification, improving nitrogen management, enteric fermentation management, carbon
sequestration in agricultural systems, methane emissions from rice cultivation, and clean energy
use in agriculture, could play a crucial role in reducing GHG emission from the agriculture sector.
Some of these strategies act as mitigation as well as adaptation strategies, thereby helping cope
with climate risk and reducing GHG emissions. Soil carbon sequestration is a double-sword
strategy as it helps reduce GHG emissions and improve agricultural production.

The direct cost of implementing the strategy and the lack of skills, knowledge, and capacity among
smallholder farmers are major constraints for scaling these climate change (GHG emissions)
mitigating technologies. Some of these climate change mitigating technologies can adversely
affect agricultural production, which could further impact food and nutritional security, rural
livelihoods and income, food price, agro-based industry, and the export earnings of the economies
that are dependent on agriculture.

3
Some government subsidies that are not climate-, environment-, and natural resources-friendly
should be reallocated into sustainable and climate-smart agriculture.

The impact of GHG mitigation on agricultural production and food security varies across
economies and regions. Therefore, while selecting the strategies for GHG mitigation, it is
important to identify the strategy with a high marginal effect on reducing GHG emission and less
negative marginal impact on food production.

The faith in the agriculture sector is very precarious. Our inaction will intensify and accelerate
climate change which will destroy the agricultural system and food security, while the
implementation of GHG mitigation strategies is associated with some direct and indirect costs
associated with it. Though the benefit of implementing GHG mitigation strategies outweighs the
cost, several challenges remain, such as financing, the disruption of food supply and raw materials
for agro-based industries, livelihood loss, foreign exchange earning loss, increase in hunger,
increase in nutritional and insecurity, and poverty.

Strategies for net zero carbon emission should extensively test the technology in the experimental
and farmers’ fields to ensure that the adverse effect on yield is minimal and sustainable, while
reducing the GHG emission substantially. It is crucial to build confidence in the technology among
all the stakeholders as smallholder farmers are poor, and mal-technology could put generations
into a debt and poverty trap. Further, farmers do not have the resources and luxury to change such
technology annually. Therefore, given the critical linkages between the agriculture sector, food
security, and poverty, we must tread this path carefully and cautiously.

4
 I. INTRODUCTION

Climate change because of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a significant threat to the future of
humanity. In recent years, we have experienced more frequent extreme climate events, such as an
increase in temperature, drought, erratic rainfall, glacial melting, increase in pests and diseases,
increase in flooding, seal level rise, and salination, thereby highlighting the urgency to reduce
GHG emissions and attain net zero carbon emissions. Failure to act quickly would jeopardize the
progress achieved so far.

Agriculture is both a victim and a culprit of climate change, yet it has the potential to play a critical
role in the fight against climate change. It has been noted that climate change will increasingly put
pressure on food production and access, especially in vulnerable regions, undermining food
security and nutrition (Shukla et al. 2019). Continuous increases in the frequency, intensity, and
severity of droughts, floods, heatwaves, and sea level rise will increase food security risk,
especially in vulnerable regions (climate hotspots). Without efforts to adapt to climate change, at
2°C or higher global warming level in the midterm, food security risks because of climate change
will be more severe, leading to malnutrition and micro-nutrient deficiencies, especially in low-
income and middle-income economies (Pörtner et al. 2022). The recent United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) has reported
that, across Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) 1 1, 2, and 3, global crop and economic models
projected a 1%–29% cereal price increase in 2050 because of climate change (RCP 6.0), which
would impact consumers globally through higher food prices (Shukla et al. 2019). An additional
20%–36% population may face hunger in 2050 under high emissions and 11%–33% under low
emissions scenarios (Hasegawa et al. 2021).

1
SSP1: Low challenges for mitigation (resource efficiency) and adaptation (rapid development); SSP3: High
challenges for mitigation (regionalized energy/land policies) and adaptation (slow development); SSP4: Low
challenges for mitigation (global high-tech economy), high for adaptation (regional low-tech economies); SSP5:
High challenges for mitigation (resource/fossil fuel intensive) and low for adaptation (rapid development).

5
Nelson et al. (2018) found that an additional 65 million people (10% more) will experience food
insecurity because of climate change in 2050, and there will be a reduction of average energy
intake by 5% in low-income and 2% in the highest-income economies.

Because of the expansion of agricultural production and limited/lack of crop intensification, land
requirements are expected to increase from 1.5 billion hectares to 1.7 billion hectares between
2012 and 2050 (FAO 2018). However, there is limited or no space for the expansion of agricultural
land and further, because of soil erosion and environmental degradation, soil health is depleting,
which could further increase the risk of food insecurity.

In 2019, GHG emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU sector were an
estimated 10.6 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e) as shown in Figure 1. Total
emissions from agriculture, i.e., generated within the farm gate and at the farm boundary with
natural ecosystems, remained relatively constant over the entire 1990–2019 period 2 (FAO 2021).
A total of 7.2 Gt CO2e was generated within the farm gate in 2019 (FAO 2021); the most
significant emission came from enteric fermentation in the digestive systems of ruminant livestock,
followed by emissions from the use of fertilizers on agricultural soils.

Farm gate emissions increased by about 10% over the period 1990–2019, from 6.6 Gt CO2e to 7.2
Gt CO2e, while the emissions from land use change decreased by 25%, from 4.7 Gt CO2e to 3.5
Gt CO2e (FAO 2021). Total emissions from agriculture remained virtually unchanged over the last
30 years because of improvements in the efficiency of agricultural production processes and
reductions in land conversions, mainly deforestation (FAO 2021).

On the other hand, forestland mitigates climate change by removing GHG from the atmosphere
through biomass growth. The contribution of forests to carbon sequestration was about 2.4 Gt in
2019 (decreased from 3.2 Gt in 1990), nearly counterbalancing emissions from net forest
conversion (FAO 2021). At the same time, fires in other forests added a relatively small amount
of non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, in the order of 0.2 Gt CO2e in 2019 (FAO 2021).

2
The underlying data uncertainty is about 30%, which stems from uncertainties in both the activity data and in the
emissions factor coefficients applied for the emissions estimates (Tubiello et al. 2013).

6
This suggests that the annual net emissions of AFOLU were slightly below 8.15 Gt. IPCC’s
AFOLU classification does not consider the emission produced from food waste. 3

Figure 1: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture, Forestry, and Other
Land Use: Asia and the Pacific, 1990–2019
14
Gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent

12
10
8
6
4
2
-
(2)
(4)
(6)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Farm gate Forestland Land use change

FAOSTAT = Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database.

Note: These categories follow FAOSTAT domain emissions totals. Methodological note released June 2021. Farm
gate emissions include burning crop residues, drained organic soils, enteric fermentation, manure applied to soils,
manure left on pasture, manure management, rice cultivation, savanna fires, synthetic fertilizers, and on-farm
energy use. Forestland emission (sink) includes forest fires and forestland. Land use change emissions include fires
in organic soils, net forest conversion in 2021.
Source: FAOSTAT (2022a).

The largest contributor of emissions within farm-gate emissions from enteric fermentation in the
digestive systems of ruminant livestock was the largest contributor (2.8 Gt CO2e) (FAO 2022a).
In the region, 77% of enteric fermentation emissions come from cattle, 14% from buffalo, and the
rest from small ruminants (sheep and goats). The largest emitters of enteric fermentation in the
region are India (0.39 Gt), the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (0.18 Gt), and Pakistan (0.13 Gt).

3
GHG emissions resulting from energy use in processing, trade, and consumption of food is about 3.4 Gt (FAO,
2016). Apart from the abovementioned emissions on agricultural land, another source of emissions is food waste.
FAO had estimated that, each year, about one third of all food produced for human consumption in the world is lost
or wasted, which is estimated to be 1.6 Gt of “primary product equivalents”, while the total wastage for the edible
part of food is 1.3 Gt (FAO 2013).

7
Despite being a major livestock producer, Australia has relatively low enteric fermentation
emissions at 0.06 Gt, which has decreased from 0.07 Gt since 1990.

The second largest emissions are from drained organic soils (0.83 Gt). Organic soils, which are
found in peatlands under waterlogged conditions, cover only a small portion (2.2%–3.0%) of the
global terrestrial surface (Leifeld and Menichetti 2018; Tubiello et al. 2016), but hold a large
proportion (more than one third) of the world’s soil organic carbon (Scharlemann et al. 2014; Yu
et al. 2010). Large areas of peatland have been drained for AFOLU and peat mining. In the region,
the largest emitters from drained organic soils are Indonesia (0.68 Gt), followed by Malaysia
(0.096 Gt) and Papua New Guinea (0.064 Gt).

Another significant contributor to emissions is the application and management of livestock

manure, which amounts to 1.31 Gt CO2e (FAO 2022a). This includes emissions from pasture-
based manure application by grazing animals (0.76 Gt), as well as the use of manure as organic
fertilizer (0.16 Gt) and the management of manure (0.39 Gt). Globally, about 0.67 Gt of emissions
is because of rice cultivation. Rice grown in flooded fields creates the perfect environment for
bacteria to decompose organic matter (mostly rice straw residue) and release methane. The rice
plant’s poor absorption of nitrogen-based fertilizers, frequently overused by farmers, leads to
nitrous oxide emissions (Earth Security Group 2019). The Asia and Pacific region accounts for
87% of the global rice cultivation emissions, most of which are from the PRC (0.14 Gt), India
(0.29 Gt), and Indonesia (0.06 Gt). Synthetic fertilizers contribute 0.60 Gt of emissions globally.
of nitrogen fertilizer. When nitrogen fertilizer is applied to the soil, only a portion is up taken by
the plants. Another portion is used by soil microorganisms, which produce nitrous oxide (N2O) as
a by-product of their metabolism, while another part of the nitrogen applied may end up leaching
or volatilizing from the application site. Soil microbial activities release N2O, a GHG with 265
times more global warming potential than CO2 over 100 years period (Menegat et al. 2022). The
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has predicted that worldwide use
of synthetic N fertilizers is expected to increase by 50% from the 2012 level by 2050 (FAO 2018).
Larger emitters from synthetic fertilizers in the region are the PRC (0.16 Gt) and India (0.09 Gt),
followed by Indonesia (0.016 Gt) and Pakistan (0.018).

8
 Figure 2: Agricultural Emissions from Farm Gate and Land Use Change, 2019 in CO2e

CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent, FAOSTAT = Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database.
Note: These categories are follow FAOSTAT Domain Emissions Totals. Methodological note, release June 2021.
Source: FAOSTAT (2022a).

Other sources of farm-gate emissions include on-farm energy use (0.53 Gt), savanna fires (0.21
Gt), crop residues (0.19 Gt), and burning crop residues (0.04 Gt). Similar to other sources of
emissions from farm-gate, the PRC, India, and Indonesia are the largest emitters, with a notable
exception from Iran, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, which emit large amounts of GHG emissions from
on-farm energy use relatively.

In order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the global temperature increase to below
2°C, and ideally to 1.5°C, the total remaining cumulative emissions should not exceed 400 Gt
CO2–1,000 Gt CO2 by the end of the century (Millar et al. 2017). In light of the above discussion,
the AFOLU sector needs to contribute significantly to achieve the climate change goals. GHG
mitigation strategies in the agriculture sector should focus on both demand and supply. Notable
mitigation strategies on the demand side include dietary change and reducing food waste and loss.
On the supply side, mitigation strategies focus on agricultural practices which reduces GHG

9
emission, such as sustainable intensification, improving nitrogen management, reducing emission
from enteric fermentation, carbon sequestration in the agricultural system, reducing methane
emission from rice cultivation, and manure management.

However, the effort to net zero carbon emissions comes with a cost. First, investment is needed in
designing, scaling, and implementing agricultural climate change mitigation strategies. Second,
some of these strategies could have a detrimental effect on agricultural production, food security,
rural livelihood, agro-based industries, and foreign exchange earnings for economies that are
exporting agricultural products. For example, Frank et al. (2017) found that limiting global
warming cost-efficiently across sectors to 1.5 °C will result in global food calorie losses ranging
from 110 kilocalories (kcal)–285 kcal per capita per day in 2050, depending on the applied demand
elasticities, which could translate into a rise in undernourishment of 80 million–300 million people
in 2050. Similarly, Havlík et al. (2014) found that stringent climate policies (specifically livestock
mitigation policies) might lead to reductions in food availability up to 200 kcal per capita per day
globally. 4 Fujimori et al. (2022) compared six global agroeconomic models using different factors
of emissions reduction 5 and carbon tax under 2°C climate-stabilization scenarios, and found that
afforestation policies caused the greatest adverse side effects on food security, followed by non-
CO2 abatement policies, and that carbon taxes and mitigation actions in AFOLU would push the
production costs, land rent, and commodity prices; consequently, calorie availability will decrease
by 117 (19–142) kcal per capita per day, and the population at risk of hunger will increase by 117.7
(19.5–155.4) million in 2050, which grows over the period.

4
Frank et al. (2019) and Havlík et al. (2014) both used GLOBUS model and compared to business-as-usual scenarios
under SPS2.
5
Non-CO2, bioenergy production, afforestation.

10
 II EMISSIONS FROM THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR IN ASIA AND THE
PACIFIC

Asia and the Pacific emitted 34% of the world’s GHG emissions from AFOLU, while the region
emitted 44.3% of total GHG emissions in 2018 (Lamb et al. 2021). AFOLU sector represents the
third largest share of emissions in the region (18.1%), after the energy systems (38.6%), industry
(29.9%), followed by transport (8.4%) and buildings (4.9%) (Lamb et al. 2021 6). Therefore, Asia
has to play a crucial role in reducing GHG emissions from all sectors, including the AFOLU
sectors, in realizing net zero carbon emissions.
Figure 3: Greenhouse Gas Emission Decomposition
60
Gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent

50

26.4
40

30

20
8.1 29.9
10 5.1
6.8
1.8 11.6 4.5
9.0
5.4
0 1.5 2.5
AFOLU Buildings Energy systems Industry Transport Total GHG
emissions

Asia Other regions

AFOLU = agriculture, forestry, and other land use; GHG = greenhouse gas.
Note: Asia includes Asia-Pacific Developed, Eastern Asia, Eurasia, South-East Asia and Developing Pacific and
Southern Asia. Other regions include Africa, Europe, Latin America and Caribbean, Middle East, North America
Source: Lamb et al. (2021) data from 2018.

Almost one third of the AFOLU emissions is from enteric fermentation, while rice cultivation
contributes to 17% and net forest conversion (12%), drained organic soils (12%), fires in organic

6
Data of 2018 in the region (AR6-10R classification) of Southeast Asia and developing Pacific, Eurasia, Eastern
Asia, Southern Asia, Asia and Pacific developed.

11
soils (13%), and synthetic fertilizers (10%). Trends from 1990 to 2019 suggest that total GHG
emissions from AFOLU in the region increased by 32%, driven by increases in population.

Figure 3 shows that the PRC and India are the largest emitters from the farm gate, each emitting
nearly 800 million tons of CO2e in 2019 (FAO 2022a). Emissions from the PRC and India are
because of enteric fermentation, the use of synthetic fertilizers, and rice cultivation. Indonesia,
Myanmar, and Malaysia have high land use change emissions (657.6 million tons of CO2e, 89.3,
million tons of CO2e, and 39.5 million tons of CO2e each, respectively) (FAO 2022a). Indonesia’s
high emission is mainly because of land use change emission (net forest conversion 19%, fires in
organic soil 38%). Indonesia’s expansion of cropland (0.18 million square kilometers or 28%) was
largely driven by international demand for palm oil, rubber, and plantation products (Austin et al.
2019; Xin et al. 2021). Pakistan’s emissions are mainly from enteric fermentation and manure left
on the soil. More than 40% of Myanmar’s emissions are from net forest conversion, while enteric
fermentation (17%) and rice cultivation (15%) are also big sources.

Figure 4: Ranking of the Top Ten Asian Economies by Emissions from Agriculture and
Land Use Change, 2019
1,500 5

1,200 4
Thousand kilotons

ton/person
900 3

600 2

300 1

0 0

Total farm gate emissions Total land use change emissions Per capita emission (ton/person)

FAOSTAT = Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database, PRC = People’s Republic of China.
Note: Farm gate emissions include emissions from enteric fermentation, livestock manure, manure management, burning of
crop residues, crop residues, rice cultivation, drained organic soils, on-farm energy use, and savanna fires. Land use change
emissions include emissions from fires in organic soils, and fires in humid tropical forests. These categories are following
FAOSTAT Domain Emissions Totals. Methodological note, release June 2021. Per capita emissions are computed using the
2019 population of countries.
Sources: FAOSTAT (2022a) and World bank databank (2022a).

12
Global diets are a key driver of production per capita, and thus land pressure and AFOLU

emissions. As per capita incomes rise and populations urbanize, traditional diets emphasize starchy

foods, legumes, and vegetable transition towards energy-intensive products such as refined sugars

and fats, oils, and meat (Tilman and Clark 2014). However, at a certain point in national

development, diets override population growth as the main driver of AFOLU emissions (Kastner

et al. 2012). For example, the PRC and India have experienced rapid dietary westernization. A

study by Kastners et al. (2014) found that using current western technologies to feed the world

with western diets implies a need for almost twice the presently used cropland area.

Therefore, Asia and the Pacific should play a crucial role in reducing the GHG emission from the

AFOLU sector, particularly by reducing enteric fermentation, N2O, and manure management,

reducing methane emissions from rice cultivation, use of clean energy, and preventing land use

change.

13
 III. IMPORTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR IN ASIA AND THE
PACIFIC

Agricultural production has increased enormously in the last four decades, and Asia has been the

engine of growth in the agriculture sector (Rahut et al. 2022). Growth in agricultural output not

only increased the income of rural families, thereby uplifting millions of the population out of

poverty and hunger, but it also supported the reduction of global food insecurity and hunger.

Agriculture provides livelihood to a significant proportion of the rural population, and nearly half

of the Asian population lives in rural areas.

Although the share of the agriculture sector to gross domestic product (GDP) in Asia has been

declining over a period of time, it is still vital to the economy and employment, accounting for

13.4% of GDP, 4.2% of the total export, and employing 570 million people. Table 1 shows that

half of the top emitters from the agriculture sector have a high agricultural output, share to GDP,

and export earning share. In Myanmar, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Thailand, the share of agricultural

and food export is relatively high (24.9%, 22.4%, 18.1%, and 14.1%). As agriculture plays a

significant role in the economy, the low carbon transition in these economies will create pressure

on the foreign currency balance, job market, and livelihood of smallholder farm households.

14
Table 1: Economic and Social Significance of Agriculture Sector in Top 10 CO2 Emitters in
Asia
Emissions
Agricultural GDP in Total Agricultural and
Country from AFOLU Labor in Agriculture
GDP Food Export
(Gt/CO2)
Constant 2015 Total Male Female
% % $ Million
$ Million (million) (million) (million)
World 8.15 4.3 3,795,594 8.5 2,771,062.4 883.3 559.1 324.4
Asia 3.57a 7.7b 2,406,797b 4.2c 569,567.0c 559.1d 390.0d 207.6d
Indonesia 1.15 13.3 139,182 22.4 65,067.5 37.3 23.6 13.7
PRC 0.14 7.3 1,173,103 2.2 101,322.3 194.3 120.2 74.2
India 0.73 16.8 445,276 11.6 58,652.0 199.6 147.7 52.1
Pakistan 0.21 23.0 74,376 18.1 7,639.4 26.2 16.9 9.3
Myanmar 0.21 23.5 15,809 24.9 8,008.2 11.8 7.7 4.1
Bangladesh 0.12 11.6 34,899 1.9 1,014.7 25.7 14.2 11.5
Malaysia 0.10 9.6 25,396 10.0 43,248.4 1.6 1.2 0.3
Thailand 0.09 8.5 37,980 14.1 58,994.9 12.1 7.1 5.0
Viet Nam 0.06 6.5 34,394.7 20.9 10.6 10.3
Philippines 0.07 10.1 35,435 8.5 10,019.1 10.1 7.7 2.4
Data from: 2019 2021 2020 2019
FAOSTAT World Bank database
Sources: FAOSTAT 2022b ILO 2022
2022a 2022b, 2022c
AFOLU = agriculture, forestry, and other land use; CO2 = carbon dioxide; FAOSTAT = Food and Agriculture
Organization Corporate Statistical Database; Gt = gigaton; GDP = gross domestic product; ILO = International Labour
Organization; PRC = People’s Republic of China, US = United States.
Note:a is for Asia and Oceania, b is for East Asia & Pacific and South Asia. c is the export of agricultural products,
food excluding fish. d is Asia (excluding Oceania/Pacific )
Source: Authors’ computation.

Table 2 shows that, in 2019, about 398.2 million people were undernourished in Asia, 439.2
million were severely food insecure, 1,109.5 million were moderately or severely insecure, and 79
million children under 5 years were stunted. Further, Southeast Asian poverty levels are
particularly high. Thus, Asia needs to increase agricultural production substantially to meet the
food and nutritional needs of the growing population against the backdrop of rising climate change
and environmental degradation.

15
 Table 2: Nutrition in Asia and the Pacific, 3-Year Averages, 2019
Poverty Headcount Moderate or Children Under
Prevalence of Severe Food
Ratio at National Severe Food 5 Years of Age
Undernourish- Insecure
Area/Country Poverty Lines Insecure Who are
ment Population
(% of population) Population Stunted
(avg 2019–2021) (avg 2019–2021)
(2019) (avg 2019–2021) (2020)
(%) (%) (million) (%) (million) (%) (million) (%) (million)
World 8.4* 9.0 702.7 10.7 830.2 28.1 2187.4 22.0 149.2
East Asia and
Asia Pacific: 1.1 8.3 387.5 9.5 439.2 23.9 1109.5 21.8 79
South Asia: 8.5**
Indonesia 9.8 6.5 17.7 0.7 1.9 6.0 16.5 31.8 7.5
PRC 1.7 <2.5 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 … …
India 21.9 16.3 224.3 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 30.9 36.1
Pakistan 21.9 16.9 37.2 8.7 19.2 32.6 72.0 36.7 10.3
Myanmar 0.0 3.1 1.7 3.7 2 25.5 13.9 25.2 1.1
Bangladesh 0.0 11.4 18.8 10.7 17.5 31.7 52.3 30.2 4.3
Malaysia 5.6 <2.5 0.0 6.3 2 15.4 5.0 20.9 0.5
Thailand 9.9 8.8 6.2 10.5 7.3 33.8 23.6 12.3 0.4
Viet Nam 6.7
Philippines 16.7 5.2 5.7 4.8 5.3 43.8 48.0 28.7 3
2019-2021 2019-2021 2019-2021
Data from: 2019 2020
average average average
Source World bank database FAOSTAT 2022c
2022d
… = not available, avg = average, FAOSTAT = Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database,
PRC = People’s Republic of China.
Note:* is the global poverty headcount ratio at $2.15 a day (2017 PPP) (% of the population), ** is East Asia & Pacific
and South Asia population under $2.15 a day (2017 PPP) (% of the population). Otherwise, Asia includes Central
Asia, East Asia, South Asia (excluding Oceania/Pacific)
Sources: Authors’ calculations.

Land-rich economies with extensive agriculture and large amounts of emissions from land use
change, in particular, deforestation and forest degradation, can reduce emissions with limited
trade-offs with food security (Frank et al. 2017). However, in the case of land-poor economies, it
could adversely affect food security.

16
 IV. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MITIGATION STRATEGIES FROM THE
AGRICULTURE SECTOR AND ITS IMPACT

Several strategies are available for GHG emissions mitigation strategies in the agriculture sector.
Some smallholder farmers are already practicing some mitigation strategies, but it is widespread.
Therefore, investment to create awareness, scale, and incentivize the adoption of GHG mitigation
strategies is crucial.

A. Demand-Side Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Strategies

Two important demand-side GHG emissions mitigation strategies include dietary changes and
reducing food waste and loss.

1. Dietary Changes
Consuming food with a lower carbon footprint will reduce GHG emissions. Dietary changes
would include consuming foods with a lower carbon footprint, such as consuming less meat, and
substituting meat with fruit and vegetable and meat with a lower footprint, such as eggs, fish, and
chicken. Dietary changes are an individual choice and cannot be imposed. Dietary intake is also
a habit that has been developed over a period of time, and it is not easy to change in the short term.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) has suggested five
ways to reduce GHG emissions from the supply side: buy locally, grow your own, avoid excessive
packaging, eat less meat, and measure what you eat. The dietary changes would result in a
mismatch between the supply and demand of food products, which may increase the price of a
commodity with more demand and could contribute to inflation, food, and nutritional insecurity.
However, dietary changes do not happen at an accelerated rate; hence, the farming community
may have the time and capacity to adjust the food supply to meet the slowly changing food basket.
The only cost for the dietary changes would come from the investment needed to create awareness
and hence demand (change in the food basket) and provide inputs to farmers to change their
production basket and, therefore, the supply.

17
 2. Reducing Food Waste and Loss
Food loss and waste (FLW) contribute to GHG emissions. Hence, reducing FLW would
contribute to the global communities’ effort to achieve net zero carbon emissions, reduce stress
on land and natural resources, and improve food security. FLW happens at different stages, such
as post-harvest, distribution, and consumption. Schemes and technology to reduce FLW at various
stages would increase food availability and reduce GHG emissions. Scaling treatments, packaging,
training, and technologies will help reduce a post-harvest loss. To reduce food loss in the
distribution stage, cold storage, packaging, and efficient distribution system are some of the
strategies. Awareness, storing correctly, preserving food, donating food, composting, innovative
food labeling and dynamic pricing, buying ‘imperfect’ fruit and vegetable, use food-sharing apps
are some strategies to reduce food waste. Besides contributing to net zero carbon emission,
reducing FLW would increase food availability and hence the food security of millions. The only
cost of reducing food loss is the investment required to scale the technology and improve
awareness.

There are numerous agricultural production side GHG mitigation strategies. In this note, we have
summarized a few common options based on the studies by Dickie et al. (2014).

3. Sustainable Intensification
Sustainable intensification of agriculture is an important strategy to reduce GHG emissions. In
sustainable intensification, farmers produce the same output level, if not more, using fewer
resources. It involves the use of high-yielding varieties, inputs, and practices, thus improving
production. Sustainable intensification has a potentially positive impact on overall production.
However, it would mean an increase in the cost of production, which may increase the food price,
thereby adversely affecting poor families. Second, smallholder farmers, particularly the poor,
vulnerable, and female farmers, may be unable to afford the technology. The third is the
accessibility to the technology. Any disruption in the input supply chain could adversely affect
production. Such negative shocks may lead to an increase in inequality and food and nutritional
insecurity.

18
 4. Improving Nitrogen Management
Nitrogen fertilizer is crucial for food production, but manufacturing and application could release
N2O, which is 300 times more powerful than CO2 as a GHG. Therefore, the programs which test
soil health conditions recommend the correct use of fertilizer, and its management is crucial for
reducing the emission of N2O. Further, the N2O fertilizer application should be optimal,
appropriately timed, use diagnostic tools to manage the rate, precision agriculture, and reduce the
nitrogen loss process. Introduce crop rotation and intercropping with legume for natural nitrogen
fixation. However, nitrogen management requires training, skills, and knowledge. Therefore,
extensive and committed extension services are crucial for scaling this technique. The failure to
properly implement nitrogen management could result in a decline in production, adversely
affecting income, livelihood, and food security. Direct impact would also be the cost of
implementing improved nitrogen management, which would increase the cost of food production
and food price.

5. Enteric Fermentation Management

Enteric fermentation is a natural part of the digestive process in ruminant animals such as cattle,
sheep, goats, and buffalo. Enteric fermentation releases methane gas, which is 28 times greater
than CO2 and lasts more than a 100-year period (Aldhafeeri et al. 2020). The strategy to reduce
emissions from enteric fermentation in the agriculture sector includes improving the quality and
digestibility of feed, providing supplements and additives to reduce methane, and optimizing the
health and reproductive capacity of the herds (Ntinyari and Gweyi-Onyango 2021). Emissions
intensities can vary significantly between different production units, even within the same
production system. Interventions to reduce emissions often involve technologies and practices that
improve production efficiency at the animal and herd level. These may include using higher-
quality feed and better feed balancing to decrease enteric and manure emissions, as well as
improving breeding and animal health to reduce the size of the unproductive portion of the herd
and related emissions.

6. Manure Management Practices

Manure management practices that ensure the recovery and recycling of nutrients and energy
contained in manure, and improvements in energy use efficiency along supply chains can

19
contribute further to mitigation. Sourcing low-emission intensity inputs (feed and energy in
particular) is a further option. An FAO study in 2013 found that a 30% reduction of GHG emissions
would be possible, for example, if producers in a given system, region, and climate adopted the
technologies and practices which are currently used by the 10% of producers with the lowest
emission intensity (Gerber et al. 2013).

7. Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Systems

Farming practices result in the release of GHG into the atmosphere. Hence, it is crucial to practice
farming methods that either reduce the release of GHG or sequester carbon. First, techniques such
as minimum or no tillage, cover crop, contour farming, and contour strip cropping would
decelerate organic matter decomposition and prevent soil erosion. Second, crop residue retention
and biochar can be applied to increase carbon in the soil. Third, agroforestry or silvopasture can
help in carbon capture and reduce soil erosion, besides providing additional cash income. Fourth,
biodiversity restoration can also be used to increase soil organic carbon storage. However, carbon
sequestration in agricultural systems requires enormous investment, and there are uncertainties
that are associated with food production, and thus income and food security.

8. Methane Emissions from Rice Cultivation

Globally, rice is among the three most important cereals after corn and wheat, and it is the number
one cereal in Asia. Rice farming contributes to global methane emissions, accounting for about
8% of global methane emissions in 1995. It is projected that this figure will decrease to 5.9% in
2030 (US-EPA 2012). Thus, reducing methane emissions from rice cultivation is an important step
toward achieving net zero carbon by 2050. Three types of strategies are recommended: (i)
improved irrigation patterns, such as mid-season drainage and controlled irrigation (Bloom and
Swisher 2010; Hou et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2012): (ii) improved straw management, such as
abandoning straw application to rice fields and straw compost (Liang et al. 2007; Koga and Tajima
2011); and (iii) improved nutrition management which includes proper fertilizer and manure
application, timing fertilizer applications, mulching cover crops, and soil testing. Further, these
strategies also have implications for the production and farmers’ capacity to implement the
practices to reduce emissions from rice cultivation. On the one hand, a strategy like mid-season
drainage can cause a rise in yield by 12%–14% (Wassmann et al. 2000). On the other hand, some

20
strategies also impose additional work for farmers, such as straw compost, and this limits farmers’
acceptance. Further alternate wetting and drying paddy farming could significantly reduce GHG
emissions and save water usage, a scarce resource threatened by climate change.

9. Clean Energy Use in Agriculture

Farms use different energy sources, such as diesel, electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and liquefied
petroleum gas, for irrigation, land management, drying, and transportation. To support the net zero
carbon emission agenda, the agriculture and energy policy should support the farmers to switch
from fossil fuels to clean fuels such as electricity. However, the availability of clean fuel and the
cost poses a serious challenge for this transition. Moreover, limited battery capacity is also a
serious obstacle.

21
 V. CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD

Given the threat posed by climate change because of global warming, every country is committed
to net carbon emissions. As the AFOLU sector contributes to a quarter of GHG emissions, AFOLU
must do its part to reduce GHG emissions to help global communities attain net zero emissions
and save the planet. Besides, it is also worth noting that agriculture is responsible for feeding 8.6
billion people in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100, while even today, 721.7 million
are undernourished, and 2.2 billion are moderate to severely food insecure. Globally, agriculture
contributes to about 14. 5% of the GDP ($3.68 billion), and agricultural and food exports amount
to $2.77 billion (8.5% of total exports), and it employs 883.3 million people. Therefore, unlike
other sectors, climate change mitigation strategies in the agriculture sector should be cautiously
implemented so that it does not disrupt the food product supply. Further, it should be supported by
the government because there are 500 million small farm households globally that are poor and
vulnerable.

There are several climate change mitigation strategies in the agriculture sector, such as dietary
changes, reducing FLW, sustainable intensification, improving nitrogen management, enteric
fermentation management, carbon sequestration in agricultural systems, methane emissions from
rice cultivation, and transition to clean fuel use in agriculture. Some of these strategies improve
yield and food security besides reducing GHG emissions, while other mitigation strategies could
lead to a decrease in food production, leading to food insecurity, loss of income, and livelihood of
rural households. Implementing these strategies requires enormous investment, which may
increase food prices, hunger and poverty, and inequalities. In this line, globally coordinated efforts
in targeting GHG hotspots is also an important factor in decreasing GHGs from AFOLU.
Specifically, land-rich economies with extensive agriculture and large amounts of emissions from
land use change, in particular deforestation and forest degradation, can reduce emissions limited
trade-offs with food security.

It is also worth noting that agriculture is responsible for feeding 8.6 billion people in 2030, 9.8
billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100, while even today 721.7 million are undernourished and
2.2 billion are moderate to severely food insecure. Globally, agriculture contributes to about 14.

22
5% of GDP ($3.68 billion), and agricultural and food exports amount to $2.77 billion (8.5% of
total exports), and it employs 883.3 million people.

Unlike other sectors, climate change mitigation strategies in the agriculture sector should be
cautiously implemented so that it does not disrupt the food product supply. Further, it should be
supported by the government as there are 500 million small farm households globally that are poor
and vulnerable.

23
 Tables A1: Summary of net carbon emission

Manure Applied to
Livestock (includes
Synthetic Fertilizers Rice Cultivation Soils LULUCF
manure)
Emission (%) 6% 8.27% 2% 32% 46%
Emission 503,144.8 587,400.95 152,862.01 2,543,565.37 3,620,850.92
(CO2e AR5 in
2019)
Mitigation • Adjusting • Tillage permutation • Soil incorporation • Protection and sustainable • Increase
strategies fertilization and • Selection of rice of fermented management of existing productivity by feed
matching N supply cultivars with low manures production forest areas • Animal health and
with demand CH4 emission and • Application of • Conservation of existing reducing mortality
• Selecting higher resource use fermented biogas protection forests • Reduced age at
fertilizer/amendment efficiency residue • Reforestation harvest, herd
, such as • Modifying • Compost • Planting long-rotation large composition,
ammonium-based cropping regime, application timber trees reduced herds
fertilizer and sulfates e.g., direct-seeded • Planting fast-growing trees • Genetic selection
• Use of nitrification rice technology for lumber • Quality of pastures
inhibitors or slow- • Modifying • Planting short-rotation
release fertilizers irrigation patterns, pulpwood forest
• Use of a leaf color such as mid-season • Growing long-rotation non-
chart or photometer drainage and timber product forest
for determining intermittent
time-dependent N drainage
demand

24
 Manure Applied to
Synthetic Fertilizers Rice Cultivation LULUCF Livestock (includes manure)
Soils

Likely positive • Induce technology • Saving labor force: • Induce the • Positive impact • Reducing herd size would
impact of the innovation in direct wet seeding is development of a on land quality push for more productivity
mitigation precision agriculture an economically fermented manure and ecology gains per unit, thus decreasing
practices • Co-benefit for soil viable technique as supply chain greenhouse gas emissions.
quality and water opposed to the • Pursuing a suite of intensive
• Conservative use of labor-intensive and extensive reproductive
chemical fertilizer transplanting. management technologies.
also positively • Mid-season Increasing animal health will
impacts farmers’ drainage and decrease the demand for
health alternate wetting replacement animals and
• Reduce costs by and drying can also decrease the costs of
saving on fertilizer cause a rise in yield veterinary services per farmer.
• Use of nitrate by 12%–14%. This is also related to one
inhibitors can also • The CH4-reducing health goals
bring a 24%–31% effect of mid-season
rise in rice yield drainage could
substantially be
enhanced in
conjunction with
direct wet seeding
(46%–57%
reduction).
• Reduced tillage also
improves long-term
land quality.
• Using manipulated
irrigation requires
machinery, which
helps the
mechanization of
agriculture.

25
 Manure Applied to
Synthetic Fertilizers Rice Cultivation LULUCF Livestock (includes manure)
Soils
Likely •Ammonium sulfate • Some traditional • Compost will • Reduce farm • Indigenous climate-resistant
negative is more expensive varieties can reduce reduce yield by size. breeds may be lost.
impact of the than urea based on emissions but have 15%, significantly. For some • Shortage of meat products
mitigation N content, e.g., the a very low yield. • Cause more labor strategies, the • Ensuring the quality of
practices costs are about • Direct wet seeding and time cost period is quite pasture will require
twice as high in the technology could long, on average, community-based actions,
Philippines. result in a taking 40 years. which may be a moral hazard
• Recent meta- significant decline • For some to some pastoralists.
analyses indicated in yield by 28% strategies, the • Improving productivity, and
that the response of compared with cost of fertility and decreasing
CH4 emissions transplanting. conduction is mortality in many parts of the
might be N rate • In the meantime, high, world, especially in
dependent, where N direct seeding is developing countries, is
addition at low rates only recommended related to inadequate nutrition.
tends to stimulate in a system with Increasing the amount of
CH4 emissions but high organic inputs. nutrition will put pressure on
can potentially And the supply of crop systems and rangelands.
mitigate CH4 water in the method
emissions at high N may also incur
rates. costs, such as
• Requirement of pumping.
technological
innovation could
result in inequality
between small
farmers and large
farmers.
LULUCF = land use, land-use change, and forestry.
Sources: Gerber, Henderson, Makker (2013b), Gerber et al., (2013a)，Banger et al., (2012) , Linquist et al., (2012), Bhatia et al., (2010), Harada et al.,(2007), Pathak et al., (2012),
Gutierrez et al., (2013), Wassmann et al., (2000a), Wassmann et al., (2000b), Zheng et al., (2000), Hoa et al., (2014)

26
 Tables A2: Summary of low carbon agriculture strategies and their perceived impact

Strategies Rationale Potential

Impacts
Economic impacts Social impacts Environment
al impacts
Food Produc- Export Supply Technology Labor Health Inequal Soil and
security tion cost chain innovation demand -ity water quality
Demand-side
Dietary changes Consuming food with a lower
- + + +
carbon footprint
Reducing food Reduce stress on land and natural
waste and loss resources and improve food + + + +
security.
Supply-side

Sustainable Produce the same output level using

intensification fewer resources, such as high-
+/- + + + + + + +
yielding varieties, inputs, and
practices
Improving Soil condition test, precision
nitrogen agriculture, crop rotation, - - - + + + - +
management intercropping.
Enteric Improving the quality and
fermentation digestibility of feed, providing - - - - + -
management supplements and additives
Carbon Minimum or no tillage, cover crop, - + +
sequestration in contour farming, and contour strip +
agriculture cropping; crop residue retention and
biochar; agroforestry or silvopasture

Reduce Improved irrigation, rice straw - -

methane management, and nutrient
emissions from management
rice cultivation
Clean energy Switch from fossil fuels to clean - +
use in fuels
agriculture
Source: Author’s review and research
Note: positive sign for production cost means the … increase in production cost；positive sign for supply chain means

27
 REFERENCES

Aldhafeeri, T., M. K. Tran, R. Vrolyk, M. Pope, and M. Fowler. 2020. A review of methane gas
detection sensors: Recent developments and future perspectives. Inventions 5(3), p. 28.

Austin, K. G., A. Schwantes, Y. Gu, and P.S. Kasibhatla. 2019. What causes deforestation in
Indonesia? Environmental Research Letters 14(2), 024007.

Banger K, Tian H, Lu C (2012) Do nitrogen fertilizers stimulate or inhibit methane emissions from
rice fields? Glob Chang Biol 18:3259– 3267.

Bhatia A, Sasmal S, Jain N, Pathak H, Kumar R, Singh A (2010) Mitigating nitrous oxide emission
from soil under conventional and no-tillage in wheat using nitrification inhibitors. Agric
Ecosyst Environ 136:247–253.

Bloom, A. and M. Swisher. 2010. Emissions from rice production. In J.C. Cutler, ed. Encyclopedia
of Earth. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Emissions_from_Rice_ Production?topic=54486
(accessed 15 June 2011).

Dickie, A., C. Streck, and S. Roe. 2014. Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture.

Earth Security Group. 2019. Financing Sustainable Rice for a Secure Future. Innovative Finance
Partnerships for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation. Earth Security Partnerships 2019.
https://earthsecurity.org/.

FAO. 2013. Food wastage foodprint: Impacts on natural resources Summary report. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

_____. 2016. The State of Food and Agriculture 2016. Climate change, agriculture and food
security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

_____. 2018. The future of food and agriculture—Alternative pathways to 2050. 60 p. Licence:
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
https://www.fao.org/3/CA1553EN/ca1553en.pdf.

_____. 2021. Emissions from agriculture and forest land. Global, regional and country trends
1990–2019. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series No 25. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations.

_____. 2022a. FAOSTAT Emissions Totals. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Extracted from
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT (accessed 31 August 2022).

_____. 2022b. FAOSTAT Crops and livestock products. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Extracted from
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TCL (accessed 31 August 2022).

28
_____. 2022c. FAOSTAT Suite of Food Security Indicators. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Extracted from
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FS (accessed 31 August 2022).

Frank, S., P. Havlík, J.F. Soussana, A. Levesque, H. Valin, E. Wollenberg, U. Kleinwechter, O.

Fricko, M. Gusti, M. Herrero, and P. Smith. 2017. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
agriculture without compromising food security? Environmental Research Letters 12(10),
p. 105004.

Frank, S., P. Havlík, E. Stehfest, H. van Meijl, P. Witzke, I. Pérez-Domínguez, M. van Dijk, J.C.
Doelman, T. Fellmann, J.F. Koopman, and A. Tabeau. 2019. Agricultural non-CO2
emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5° C target. Nature Climate Change
9(1), pp. 66–72.

Fujimori, S., W. Wu, J. Doelman, S. Frank, J. Hristov, P. Kyle, R. Sands, W.J. Van Zeist, P. Havlik,
I.P. Domínguez, and A.Sahoo. 2022. Land-based climate change mitigation measures can
affect agricultural markets and food security. Nature Food 3(2), pp. 110–121.

Gerber, P.J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci, and G.

Tempio. 2013a. Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of
emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.

Gerber, P. J., Henderson, B., and Makkar, H. P. 2013b. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
in livestock production: a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions (No. 177).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Gutierrez J, Kim SY, Kim PJ (2013) Effect of rice cultivar on CH4 emissions and productivity in
Korean paddy soil. Field Crop Res 146:16–24

Harada H, Kobayashi H, Shindo H (2007) Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by no-tilling

rice cultivation in Hachirogata polder, north- ern Japan: life-cycle inventory analysis. Soil
Sci Plant Nutr 53:668– 677.

Havlík, P., H. Valin, M. Herrero, M. Obersteiner, E. Schmid, M.C. Rufino, A. Mosnier, P.K.
Thornton, H. Böttcher, R.T. Conant, and S. Frank. 2014. Climate change mitigation
through livestock system transitions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
111(10), pp. 3709–3714.

Hasegawa, T., G. Sakurai, S. Fujimori, K. Takahashi, Y. Hijioka, and T. Masui. 2021. Extreme
climate events increase risk of global food insecurity and adaptation needs. Nature Food
2(8), pp. 587–595.

Hoa NT, Hasegawa T, Matsuoka Y. Climate change mitigation strategies in agriculture, forestry
and other land use sectors in Vietnam. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change. 2014;19(1):15–32.

29
Hou, A. X., G. X. Chen, Z. P. Wang, O. Van Cleemput, and W.. H. Patrick Jr. 2000. Methane and
nitrous oxide emissions from a rice field in relation to soil redox and microbiological
processes. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64(6), pp. 2180–2186.

Kastner, T., M. J. I. Rivas, W. Koch, and S. Nonhebel. 2012. Global changes in diets and the
consequences for land requirements for food. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 109(18), pp. 6868–6872.

Kastner, T., A. Schaffartzik, N. Eisenmenger, K. H. Erb, H. Haberl, and F. Krausmann. 2014.

Cropland area embodied in international trade: Contradictory results from different
approaches. Ecological Economics 104, pp. 140–144.

Koga, N. and R. Tajima. 2011. Assessing energy efficiencies and greenhouse gas emissions under
bioethanol-oriented paddy rice production in northern Japan. Journal of Environmental
Management 92(3), pp. 967–973.

Lamb, W.F., T. Wiedmann, J. Pongratz, R. Andrew, M. Crippa, J.G. Olivier, D. Wiedenhofer, G.

Mattioli, A. Al Khourdajie, J. House, and S. Pachauri. 2021. A review of trends and drivers
of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environmental Research Letters
16(7), p. 073005.

Leifeld, J. and L. Menichetti. 2018. The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate
change mitigation strategies. Nature communications 9(1), pp. 1–7.

Liang, W., S. H. L. Yi, H. Zhang, Y. U. E. Jin, and G. H. Huang. 2007. Greenhouse gas emissions
from northeast (People’s Republic of) China rice fields in fallow season. Pedosphere 17(5),
pp. 630–638.

Linquist BA, Van Groenigen KJ, Adviento-Borbe MA, Pittelkow C, Van Kessel C (2012) An
agronomic assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from major cereal crops. Glob Chang
Biol 18:194–209.

Menegat, S., A. Ledo, and R. Tirado. 2022. Greenhouse gas emissions from global production and
use of nitrogen synthetic fertilisers in agriculture. Scientific Reports 12(1), pp. 1–13.

Millar, R.J., J.S. Fuglestvedt, P. Friedlingstein, J. Rogelj, M.J. Grubb, H.D., Matthews, R.B. Skeie,
P.M. Forster, D.J. Frame, and M.R. Allen. 2017. Emission budgets and pathways consistent
with limiting warming to 1.5 C. Nature Geoscience 10(10), pp.741–747.

Nelson, G., J. Bogard, K. Lividini, J. Arsenault, M. Riley, T. B. Sulser, and M. Rosegrant. 2018.
Income growth and climate change effects on global nutrition security to mid-century.
Nature Sustainability 1(12), pp. 773–781.

30
Ntinyari, W. and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango. 2021. Greenhouse gases emissions in agricultural systems
and climate change effects in Sub-Saharan Africa. In African Handbook of Climate Change
Adaptation. Springer, Cham (pp. 1081–1105).

Pathak H, Chakrabarti B, Bhatia A, Jain N, Aggarwal PK (2012) Potential and cost of low carbon
technologies in rice and wheat systems: a case study for the Indo-Gangetic Plains. In:
Pathak H, Aggarwal PK (eds) Low carbon technologies for agriculture: a study on rice and
wheat systems in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New
Delhi, India pp 12–40

Pörtner, H.O., D. C. Roberts, H. Adams, C. Adler, P. Aldunce, E. Ali, R. A. Begum, R. Betts, R.

B. Kerr, R. Biesbroek, and J. Birkmann. 2022. Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation
and vulnerability. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.

Rahut, D.B., J. P. Aryal, N. Manchanda, and T. Sonobe. 2022. Chapter 6 - Expectations for
household food security in the coming decades: A global scenario. In Future Foods (pp.
107–131). Academic Press.

Scharlemann, J. P., E. V. Tanner, R. Hiederer, and V. Kapos. 2014. Global soil carbon:
understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Management 5(1),
pp. 81–91.

Shukla, P.R., J. Skeg, E. C. Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H. O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai,

R. Slade, S. Connors, S. Van Diemen, and M. Ferrat. 2019. Climate Change and Land: an
IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land
management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.

Tilman, D. and M. Clark. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health.
Nature 515(7528), pp. 518–522.

Tubiello, F. N., Salvatore, M., Rossi, S., Ferrara, A., Fitton, N., & Smith, P. (2013). The
FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environmental
Research Letters, 8(1), 015009.

Tubiello, F. N., R. Biancalani, M. Salvatore, S. Rossi, and G. Conchedda. 2016. A worldwide

assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from drained organic soils. Sustainability 8(4), p.
371.

US-EPA. 2012. Global anthropogenic non-CO greenhouse gas emissions: 1990–2030. Emissions
Report. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Wassmann R, Buendia LV, Lantin RS et al (2000a) Mechanisms of crop management impact on

methane emissions from rice fields in Los Banos, Philippines. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst
58:107–119. doi:10. 1023/A:1009838401699

31
Wassmann, R., R. S. Lantin, H. U. Neue, L. V. Buendia, T. M. Corton, and Y. Lu. (2000b).
Characterization of methane emissions from rice fields in Asia. III. Mitigation options and
future research needs. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 58(1), pp. 23–36.

World Bank. 2022a. Population, total. License: CC BY-4.0. Extracted from

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL (accessed 31 August 2022).

World Bank. 2022b. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (% of GDP). License: CC BY-
4.0. Extracted from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS (accessed 31
August 2022).

World Bank. 2022c. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$). License:
CC BY-4.0. Extracted from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.KD
(accessed 31 August 2022).

World Bank. 2022d. World Development Indicators Poverty indicators. License: CC BY-4.0.
Extracted from https://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty?view=chart (accessed 31 August
2022).

Xin, Y., L. Sun, and M. C. Hansen. 2021. Biophysical and socio-economic drivers of oil palm
expansion in Indonesia. Environmental Research Letters 16(3), 034048.

Yang, S., S. Peng, J. Xu, Y. Luo, and D. Li. 2012. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from
paddy field as affected by water-saving irrigation. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,
Parts A/B/C, 53, pp. 30–37.

Yu, Z., J. Loisel, D. P. Brosseau, D. W. Beilman, and S. J. Hunt. 2010. Global peatland dynamics
since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophysical research letters 37(13).

Zheng X, Wang M, Wang Y et al (2000) Mitigation options for methane, nitrous oxide and nitric
oxide emissions from agricultural ecosystems. Adv Atmos Sci 17:83–92.

32