The COP28 conference in November 2023 was the first of the COPs to say anything serious about agriculture.

Before the conference, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) put out a document on food and climate change.

At the conference, over 150 countries signed a declaration on “sustainable agriculture”.

Of course, the big agricultural corporations worked hard to ensure that their businesses were not affected. They had three times the number of lobbyists at COP 28 compared with COP27 the year before. They spoke eloquently on the need for food security, warning against disruptions to food supply chains.

The lobbyists were successful in ensuring that no concrete plans or goals were agreed to. The conference’s “Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action” did little more than promise that countries would include food and agriculture in their climate plans. There were no targets set and no hint of the type of actions that would be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) declaration at least set some milestones for improving both food security and climate goals. It had very little information on how these goals would be achieved, but set COP30 as the time by which countries have to submit action plans.

Agriculture and climate change

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture will be crucial in fighting climate change. Approximately 30% of GHG emissions come from farming and food production.

There are two main reasons why agriculture has been neglected up to now.

Firstly, Big Agriculture (“Big Ag”) has fought against anything that would get in the way of their profits.

Second, emissions from the food chain are complex. They derive from various different sources, and unlike fossil fuel, there is no substitute for food. So over and above all the political opposition to any meaningful changes, the social and techical challenges are very real.

The global food system is the source of about a quarter of all GHG emissions. Calculating these emissions depends on definitions, what is included but what is not. But roughly, they consist of

• 45% from raising livestock (mainly methane from digestive systems);
• 30% from growing crops for human consumption (mainly nitrogen based fertilizer and methane from traditional rice growing in Asia); and
• 25% from deforestation and burning grassland for agriculture.

Livestock

It is well known that production of meat is an inefficient use of land to provide food, requiring much more land than that required for growing crops for human consumption. The beef industry is always hungry for more and more land. It is therefore a major source of the deforestation that is ravaging the Amazon and other forests. A reduction in the world’s livestock production, focused on Big Agriculture in the US, Brazil, and other top cattle countries, will be essential to fight climate change.

Reducing livestock production

Major intervention from governments will be needed. Firstly, government subsidies that promote cattle farming will have to end. Livestock numbers will need to be controlled through regulation that especially targets large ranches and factory farming. Subsidies can be offered to farmers who change from livestock to other types of farming that have lower GHG emissions.

The measures taken will have to be appropriate to the size and type of operations. Cattle production ranges from huge ranches (e.g. in Brazil and Australia), feedlots (e.g. in the US and China), through small but moderately wealthy small or family farms (e.g. in the US and Europe) to millions of cattle owned by small traditional farmers in India. Reduction in numbers of cattle cannot be allowed to impoverish small and traditional farmers.

Rice

The traditional growing of rice by farmers in south east Asia entails the flooding of rice paddies. The organic matter that decays in the flooded fields emits large quantities of methane, a strong greenhouse gas. Rice is obviously a major food staple in Asia, and it won’t be feasible to reduce its cultivation for many decades. But the GHG emissions will need to be reduced.

Farming methods will have to change, with less organic matter being allowed to rot in rice paddies. Farmers can switch to varieties of rice that need less time under water.

Other crops

The chief way to reduce greenhouse gases from crop production will be to reduce the use of nitrogenous fertilizer. Much more fertilizer is applied to the soil than crops can absorb. The wasted nitrogen ends up as nitrous oxide, an extremely strong GHG. It also finds its way into water ways and groundwater as nitrates – a major source of water pollution.

Large scale farming and the heavy use of nitrogen-based fertilizer to crops have been the basis of huge increases in agricultural productivity over the last century. There will be little alternative to making significant reductions in the quantities of nitrogenous fertilizer applied to the soil. This will mean moving back to less intensive forms of agriculture. Terms such as “conservation agriculture” and “no-till farming” describe some of the alternatives.

Governments will need to regulate the manufacture and use of commercial fertilizers, impose penalties for non-compliance and offer subsidies to encourage the necessary changes.

Farms using these different approaches are likely to be less productive than the huge mechanized farms of today (although one study has suggested that these other methods can match the productivity of current practices.) But society will have to adapt to any higher food costs from more environmentally friendly agriculture.

Emissions from deforestation are the easiest to control, with strict regulation and enforcement.

Impact on economies

The changes needed for reducing agricultural GHG emissions will clearly have far reaching consequences for agricultural businesses, farmers, farm workers and others in the food supply chain.

The market economy is completely unable to manage these changes. Without serious government intervention, livelihoods and living standards of millions of people will be seriously harmed. Avoiding this will be costly. Farm workers and others whose jobs will disappear will need significant assistance. Small farmers will require new subsidies and other financial assistance.

Governments will also have to provide extensive technical support and advice to farmers. Extension services will have to be increased. Funding for research into low emission agriculture will also need to be provided on a large scale.

While massive financial support for all these changes will be essential, a successful transition will need governments to manage changes jointly with those affected, mainly trade unions and farmers’ organizations. Not the usual top-down “consultation” that governments usually use, but genuine joint planning on how best to reach required targets. Unless workers and farmers believe that the changes are necessary, reasonable and fair, conflicts and disputes will be inevitable.

What will this cost?

The costs of changing agricultural practices will be large. In 2019 the Food and Land Use Coalition published a report on the transformation of food and land use. It broke down the costs of 10 transformations it identified as necessary to improve the way we produce food. Four of these are closely related to reducing greenhouse gases. These four, and the estimated costs to 2030, are:

• Plant based diets (regulation, subsidies) – $1.3 trillion
• Regenerative agricultural systems (subsidies to farmers, extension services) – $1.2 trillion
• Protection and restoration of nature (enforcement) $0.9 trillion
• New sources of protein (public procurement, research and development) – $0.25 trillion

Of course, these activities will extend well beyond 2030, and the total cost will be at least double these figures. https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/global-report/

Cost of protecting jobs

Many workers whose existing jobs disappear will be able to find new work in the new farming methods, especially if effective incentives are offered. But for those unable to get new jobs, a just transition will mean guarantees for their salaries and pensions.

The cost of these guarantees is extremely difficult to calculate. Figures for numbers of workers in particular types of agriculture are not readily available. And the ease with which appropriate new jobs can be created is almost impossible to predict.

A plausible estimate, with many assumptions regarding workforce numbers, salaries and the ability to create suitable jobs, gives a total figure of $1.2 trillion. The peak spending would be about $34 billion per year in 2050. This is considerably less than other interventions essential in reducing GHGs. Any talk of a “just transition” is empty if it leaves out the well being of agricultural workers.