Increase agricultural productivity sustainably, resiliently and without expanding into high-carbon, biodiverse ecosystems

Increasing the efficiency of aquaculture production through sustainable intensification is necessary to meet the growing global demand for seafood while minimizing environmental harms associated with aquaculture production. However, aquaculture intensification is constrained by a number of factors, including the spread of infectious disease and high cost of inputs such as feed ingredients, some of which may be mitigated by ensuring intensification occurs in a sustainable way.

Greater investments in research and development (R&D) will be integral in addressing these challenges. For instance, R&D could improve genetic breeding, husbandry practices, wastewater treatment, and diagnostics and vaccines to detect and curb disease spread. R&D could also be used to develop alternative feed ingredients and explore opportunities for improving environmental impacts by shifting to alternative methods of aquaculture production, such as integrated rice-fish production systems. 

Global spending on R&D for sustainable aquaculture intensification is not consistently tracked. Some research has explored the expansion of funding for aquaculture R&D in industrialized countries such as Norway and the United States. By contrast, many low-income countries, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, have limited resources and capacity to invest in aquaculture R&D, hindering the development and adoption of sustainable intensification practices and technologies.

Insufficient veterinary services significantly impact the productivity and efficiency of animal-sourced food production, with implications for food security, livelihoods and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock. Diseases among animals, such as clinical mastitis, can also increase the GHG emission intensity of animal-sourced foods.

Currently, there are no publicly available datasets that track access to veterinary service providers globally. A few available data points illustrate that there is substantial geographic variation, with countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and United States having 34, 49, and 53 veterinary service providers per 100,000 people, respectively, while sub-Saharan African countries have a much lower rate of 7.4 veterinarians per 100,000 people.

Underserved areas — which often have the lowest dairy and ruminant meat productivity — also present the greatest potential for mitigation and productivity gains through improved animal health services. Initiatives should focus on training, attracting and retaining veterinary professionals, improving service distribution and integrating veterinary care into broader health and agricultural systems. Innovations such as digital technologies and telemedicine can further extend veterinary services' reach, particularly in remote and underserved areas.

Access to electricity plays an important role in enhancing agricultural productivity, improving livelihoods and increasing resilience to climate change in rural areas.

Electrification enables farmers to adopt technologies that can significantly boost farm efficiency and output. For example, electric water pumps allow for more reliable irrigation. Mobile phones and computers provide farmers with access to vital information and services, including farming advice and market information, which has been shown to increase agricultural yields by 4% in Africa and India. Early warning systems for extreme weather events, digital financial services, and smart farming technologies, such as precision farming, are other examples of how electrification and digitalization can transform agriculture.

Access to electricity remains limited in many rural areas, particularly in some countries in Africa, such as Angola, Equatorial Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, there has been significant progress globally — the share of the global rural population with electricity access increased from 67% in 2000 to 84% in 2024.

To ensure universal access to electricity by 2030, significant investments in grid expansion and decentralized renewable energy solutions will be essential. Additionally, targeted policies to support affordability and accessibility, especially in remote rural areas, will be important. Integrating energy access with agricultural development and climate change adaptation strategies can help unlock the full potential of rural electrification to drive sustainable and equitable development.

Improved irrigation technologies encompass modern systems like drip irrigation and sprinklers, precision irrigation with sensor-based control, and the use of information and communication technologies to advance efficient water management. These methods aim to enhance water use efficiency, minimize waste and improve agricultural productivity, ultimately contributing to sustainable water resource management and food security.

This indicator uses the extent of irrigated cropland as a proxy for access to improved irrigation technologies. In 2018, there were 350 million hectares (Mha) of irrigated land globally. Research suggests an increasing trend of total area under irrigation. According to one study, from 2000 to 2015, the area equipped for irrigation increased by 11%, from 297 Mha to 330 Mha. In the United States, a 71% increase in the use of drip irrigation between 1998 and 2018 contributed to a 10% increase in irrigated cropland in Arizona, despite a reduction in water use. Similarly, the adoption of irrigation technologies in India has significantly increased the total irrigated land area, growing from 39% of total cultivated land in 2000-01 to 56% in 2022-23.

However, there are significant variations between regions in the use of irrigation technologies. In 2023, Asia had the largest irrigated area at 270 Mha, which accounted for 39% of its total cropland area. In comparison, about 17% of North America's total cropland area was irrigated, followed by 16% in South America, 11% in Europe, 10% in Africa and 9% in Oceania.

Several key factors influence irrigation expansion and adoption. These include climate conditions like rainfall, water availability, soil characteristics, crop water requirements, technological advancements, economic factors like market demand, government policies and investments in irrigation infrastructure, and farmers' socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., farm size, education, access to credit).

The need to adapt to climate change and mitigate its impact on agricultural production will likely also drive an increase in the adoption of irrigation technologies. However, improved irrigation technologies, when combined with certain policies, can lead to unintended consequences like the overexploitation of groundwater resources. Policies and stakeholders need to take holistic approaches to sustainably incentivize the use of efficient technologies.

Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, including seeds and tissues stored under controlled conditions, support plant breeding and seed distribution efforts to enhance crop resilience against climate change impacts and other risks. This helps to ensure food security and preserve biodiversity.

The number of plant genetic resources conserved under medium- or long-term storage provides a measure of managed genetic diversity. Globally, resources in such facilities increased from 3.1 million in 1995 to 5.9 million in 2022, housed in various national, regional and global gene banks. This represents significant progress toward conserving the estimated 10 million accessions that can be collected with increased effort. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture facilitates global exchange and fair benefit-sharing of these resources among its 131 member parties.

However, although the quantity of conserved resources has increased, there are concerns about the quality and diversity of these collections. Some important crop varieties and wild relatives are underrepresented, and current efforts exclude some plant species that have potential use for agriculture and food. Additionally, these expanding efforts may still be insufficient to meet the growing demands for diverse genetic resources in crop breeding programs. Sustaining the existing collections also poses challenges like financial uncertainty and genetic erosion risks.

To enhance genetic resource conservation, several key actions are essential. These include broader collection efforts, stronger conservation capacities, sustainable resource use, capacity building, policy alignment and increased funding. That increased funding will need to enable both initial investments in conservation facilities and long-term support for their operation and maintenance, which has been a challenge especially in developing countries.

It is also important to support and expand community seed banks, especially in developing countries. These local initiatives play an increasingly important role in conserving genetic diversity and maintaining traditional knowledge at the grassroots level.

Farmers across the globe face various challenges that may lead to abandoning farming or being displaced from their land. In Africa and Asia, for instance, average farm sizes tend to decrease over time due to land fragmentation, then risk becoming economically unviable. Elsewhere, larger farms emerge as agriculture becomes more commercialized, contributing to the displacement of smallholder farmers. Factors such as climate change impacts, economic pressures and urbanization further drive farmers away from agriculture in both developing and developed countries.

Providing displaced farmers and farmers who abandon farming voluntarily with opportunities for high-quality employment in non-agricultural sectors can support rural economic resilience in the face of climate change and other pressures. Additionally, without viable alternatives, farmers may continue cultivating infertile and degraded areas, risking the further degradation of already-vulnerable lands and exacerbating environmental issues, poverty and food insecurity.

There is limited data on the proportion of farmers who secure employment in other sectors after leaving farming. Therefore, we use as a proxy the share of non-agricultural employment out of total employment, sourced from ILOSTAT. Globally, non-agricultural jobs represented 79% of total employment in 2023, a number that has remained fairly consistent over the past five years. Most sub-Saharan African and Southeast Asian countries had the lowest shares of non-agricultural employment, suggesting that they had fewer opportunities for employment available outside of farming. Critically, this data does not speak to the quality of these non-agricultural jobs.

Data gaps make it difficult to assess progress in this indicator, but studies highlight the challenges smallholder farmers face when transitioning to non-agricultural sectors, especially in developing countries with limited alternative industries and job opportunities. Supporting this transition requires holistic interventions, such as investing in education and vocational training, upgrading rural infrastructure (including transportation, communication networks and energy systems) and enacting policies that stimulate diverse industries in rural areas.

The amount of climate finance dedicated to supporting the deployment of climate-smart, sustainable agricultural production technologies and practices remains small and insufficient relative to the need and mitigation potential.

While innovations are urgently needed, many gains in productivity could be achieved with existing technologies and practices, such as improved soil and water management practices, seeds, livestock health and animal management. Similarly, many reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and environmental harms could be achieved with existing techniques, like solid separation systems for managed manure and precision fertilizer application.

The total climate finance for agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU) includes local, national and transnational financing — drawing from public, private and alternative sources — that supports mitigation and adaptation actions addressing climate change.

Climate funding for AFOLU rose more than threefold between 2019 and 2022, from $13 billion to about $45 billion. Much of the reported increase, however, is primarily due to improved data collection rather than a significant rise in funding. Current climate financing for AFOLU remains far below levels required to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees C target. The IPCC estimates that annual investment in AFOLU mitigation must reach between $100 billion and $300 billion by 2030, and rise to over $400 billion annually by 2050. A more recent analysis by Climate Policy Initiative estimates even higher needs of $1.3 trillion per year by 2030 for AFOLU mitigation alone.

Evidence suggests only a small portion of climate finance goes to agriculture and food systems specifically. According to one estimate, in 2020, just 4.3% (approximately $29 billion) of tracked total climate finance went to agriculture and food systems.

Current investment levels are insufficient and unevenly distributed. According to one estimate for 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, only 2% of annual investment needs were met for climate-smart agriculture financing. This underinvestment hinders technology adoption in vulnerable regions, potentially reducing productivity, increasing food insecurity and missing significant opportunities to lower emissions.

Furthermore, what financing is available often fails to reach vulnerable smallholder producers. A 2023 study found that only 0.3% of global climate financing reached family farms and just 0.8% went to smallholder farmers, who face a combined annual shortfall of approximately $170 billion. Rather than growing to meet the need, climate financing for these farmers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, declined by 44% between 2017-2018 and 2019-2020.

Research consistently shows a positive link between access to credit and the adoption of climate-resilient and generally sustainable agricultural technologies and practices. Credit enables farmers to afford up-front investments, expensive inputs, higher implementation costs and longer payback periods associated with productive and climate-smart, sustainable agriculture and aquaculture. In the absence of credit, farmers often keep more of their assets liquid to ensure they can access them in case of need, a situation which can limit their ability to invest in productivity-enhancing technologies or practices.

Credit availability can thus allow farmers to allocate their resources more efficiently. For example, research on crop price insurance loans, rainfall index insurance and free savings accounts in Ghana, India and Malawi found that these interventions helped farmers make productive investments, manage weather-related shocks and protect their incomes from climate variability, thus enhancing their adaptive capacity and resilience.

While excessive debt in a household can lead to high interest payments, the widespread use of lending services can be associated with increased access to financial options available to producers to support the adoption of productive and climate-smart agricultural practices or technologies. This indicator tracks loans from formal financial institutions such as banks. Local financing institutions and mechanisms, like village savings and loan associations, also serve as important sources of financing, especially when formal financial institutions are difficult to access. These disparities stem from economic differences, limited institutional capacity and cultural norms, particularly affecting women, Indigenous people and rural communities.

Across low- and middle-income countries, the share of adults borrowing formally from a financial institution has risen in the last ten years, increasing from roughly 15% in 2014 to 24% in 2024. However, this figure varies widely across regions, as well as by gender and income level.

The share of adults borrowing formally from a financial institution offers a proxy for measuring access to credit, although it cannot distinguish access specifically for producers as opposed to all adults.

Most farmed fish and shellfish have relatively low environmental impacts, including a lower land use footprint per kilogram, than other animal-source foods (especially ruminant meat). Thus, if aquaculture production is expanded carefully to reduce ecosystem conversion and meet growing demands, it still offers an opportunity to reduce land use demands in net. Halting ecosystem conversion for aquaculture expansion will require reversing policies that incentivize expansion into high-carbon, biodiverse ecosystems and adopting policies that support sustainable intensification and environmental protection. Simultaneously, countries must balance environmental regulations with aquaculture growth goals.

Public policies that can advance more sustainable aquaculture development may include laws prohibiting ecosystem conversion for aquaculture, as well as other regulatory measures, plans and funding priorities to shape the aquaculture industry. For example, national aquaculture development plans can ensure that aquaculture is done in line with zonal management principles and emerging guidelines for sustainable aquaculture. Regulations can reform the fish-based feed industry in order to prioritize direct human consumption of fish and therefore limit harms to local livelihoods and food security.

Aquaculture policies differ substantially across countries. One study found that strict environmental regulations in Europe, the United States and Oceania have led to relatively limited aquaculture growth in output and revenue (with the exception of Norway), while countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia generally have less stringent policies. That said, some countries in these regions have begun to introduce stronger environmental protections, including disease control measures important for sustainable intensification (e.g., in Chile) and restrictions to protect coastal ecosystems (e.g., in China).

A longitudinal cross-country analysis is needed to evaluate the extent to which current aquaculture policies support sustainable intensification and environmental protection.

Agricultural production is a major polluter of water resources. Untreated agricultural runoff contains pesticides, fertilizers, manure and other pollutants. As a result, it contaminates water bodies, harms aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity, and poses risks to human health. This leads to the degradation of inland and coastal waters, eutrophication and groundwater pollution. Agricultural water pollutants also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, mostly through denitrification of nitrogen waste in water, resulting in the release of nitrous oxide.

On-farm practices like the preservation and creation of riparian buffers and ecological ditches and the use of precision agriculture and erosion control techniques can be very effective at controlling runoff, but farmers often have little incentive to switch to these more expensive or labor-intensive practices.

Strong regulations can incentivize the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices to reduce agricultural pollution. While policy effectiveness varies by context (and may increase when applied in combination), options to reduce pesticide and nutrient pollution include restrictions, taxes or application limits for pesticides and fertilizers; subsidies to support increasing nutrient use efficiency and improving manure management practices; and results-based economic incentives.

The use of fertilizers and pesticides may be valuable in helping close yield gaps in some contexts. These gaps are greatest for major cereal grains in parts of South and Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Africa, and Central America. At the same time, the overall quantity of fertilizers and pesticides used globally must be curbed to protect terrestrial biodiversity. Reforming agricultural regulations and subsidies can help limit — but not necessarily prohibit — judiciously increased fertilizer or pesticide use where relevant to improve food security.

There is no comprehensive dataset that compares water pollution regulations across different countries over time. Tracking and monitoring the establishment and enforcement of these regulations is essential for protecting water resources, freshwater and other ecosystems, as well as safeguarding human and ecosystem well-being.

Integrated water resources management (IWRM) promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources to maximize economic and social welfare without compromising ecosystem sustainability. If designed and implemented properly, it can help ensure equitable water distribution; meet the diverse needs of communities, industries and agriculture; and involve stakeholders in decision-making.

IWRM focuses on conserving water-dependent ecosystems, preserving biodiversity, maintaining water quality and restoring degraded environments, while also addressing the water needs and impacts of agriculture through sustainable irrigation practices, efficient water use in crop production and mitigation of agricultural runoff. It also integrates climate change considerations into water management strategies, helping to adapt to changing precipitation patterns, extreme weather events and rising temperatures, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

IWRM implementation can yield significant and diverse benefits that contribute to sustainable development and improved water security across a wide variety of contexts.

Globally, the share of countries with high or very high levels of implementation of national-level IWRM policies and plans grew from 19% in 2017 to 26% in 2023. While this is heading in the right direction, as of 2023, 136 countries still had not made sufficient progress with IWRM implementation, despite the global call for IWRM since 1992.

The limited implementation of such policies hinders sustainable water management, leading to conflicts, resource inefficiency and environmental degradation. Tracking the implementation of these policies is important for understanding progress toward sustainable and equitable water management.

Soil degradation poses a significant threat to agricultural productivity, food security and environmental sustainability. Soil degradation and climate change are closely connected, creating a vicious cycle: degraded soils lose their ability to sequester carbon and support vegetation, leading to increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that drive climate change. At the same time, climate change exacerbates soil degradation through changes in temperature, precipitation patterns and extreme weather events like droughts and floods.

Measures that promote, guide or require agricultural practices aimed at minimizing soil degradation are necessary for maintaining soil health, productivity and environmental sustainability. These measures encompass a range of sustainable land management practices, including conservation tillage, crop rotation and cover cropping, contour farming and terracing, integrated nutrient management, agroforestry and windbreaks, and sustainable irrigation techniques.

By promoting these practices through comprehensive national policies, economic incentives, land tenure reforms, research and capacity building, countries can combat the severe consequences of soil degradation.

Currently there is no comprehensive global dataset tracking country, state or company policies that promote, guide or require agricultural practices to minimize soil degradation.

Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant peoples, and local communities play an important role in global climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. For example, at least 24% of the total carbon in tropical and subtropical forests is from lands managed by Indigenous people and overlap with 80% of the planet's biodiversity hotspots. Moreover, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant peoples, and local communities are also at the frontlines in observing and responding to climate change impacts.

Despite their crucial role in environmental stewardship, climate change adaptation and mitigation, as of 2020, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant peoples, and local communities legally owned only 11% of land across 73 countries, and governments had designated more limited rights over an additional 7.2%. This is less than one-fifth of the global land that Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples have claim over, which leaves vast areas of ancestral land vulnerable to exploitation and environmental degradation. Securing land rights is not just a matter of social justice, but also a key strategy in global efforts to combat climate change and preserve biodiversity. This percentage has not changed significantly since 2015, indicating a persistent gap in recognizing and securing land rights for these communities. However, even where legal ownership or formal recognition exists, tenure security is often undermined by weak enforcement mechanisms, overlapping claims and external pressures such as extractive industries.

Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant peoples, and local communities often have deep cultural and historical connections to their lands, which inform their agricultural practices and land management approaches. Their traditional knowledge and farming practices enhance resilience to environmental changes and contribute to soil fertility and biodiversity conservation. The ability of these communities to manage their lands according to their cultural traditions, needs and sustainable practices is necessary for preserving ecosystems and biodiversity.

However, the historical and ongoing land dispossession and grabbing of these communities' territories threaten their ability to continue practicing traditional sustainable agricultural methods such as crop protection, veterinary practices and agroforestry, as well as their capacity to safeguard biodiversity.

This lack of legal acknowledgment leaves ancestral territories vulnerable to exploitation by governments, corporations, individuals and even some poorly implemented projects to reduce deforestation, posing severe threats to biodiversity, climate mitigation efforts and community livelihoods.

For many countries, nationally determined contributions (NDCs) form the foundation of international climate action. They help guide domestic policymaking across the whole of government, signal the direction of travel to public and private sector investors, and enable more effective implementation.

Including climate-smart, sustainable agricultural measures in NDCs can play an important role in shaping countries' agricultural policies. For example, it is critical that countries adopt policies that help minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agricultural practices while enhancing climate resilience. Equally important is that countries pair efforts to boost agricultural productivity with ecosystem protection measures.

These strategies in NDCs can be complemented by countries' national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), which provide a framework for conserving biodiversity and promoting sustainable use of natural resources in the agricultural sector. It is also necessary to prevent environmental leakage, where protective measures in one country may inadvertently shift production and associated environmental damages to countries with lower environmental protections. To address this, countries should strive for coordinated global action and implement policies that consider both local and global environmental impacts.

As of December 2024, 91% (176 countries) who had submitted their NDCs included a sectoral measure focused on agriculture. However, only 33% (64 countries) included at least one quantifiable target focused on agriculture.

Current targets demonstrate the variety of approaches to emissions reductions. For instance, Vietnam’s targets aim to cut methane emissions from rice cultivation by 10% by 2030, as compared to 2010 levels, and Denmark aims to lower agricultural and forestry emissions by 70% by 2030, as compared to 1990 levels. Denmark’s strategy includes a pioneering Green Tripartite Agreement, which combines a livestock emissions tax, incentives to reduce nitrogen pollution, and large-scale restoration of peatlands and forests to address agricultural emissions and environmental degradation comprehensively.

However, there are still several challenges to ensuring greater inclusion of food and agriculture issues into climate strategies. This includes, for instance, insufficient clarity and depth regarding proposed agriculture-related policies, and inadequate attention to the requirements of vulnerable communities, small-scale farmers, and women in the agriculture sector.

It is important to note that this data may exclude agricultural reforms and climate-smart practices implemented independently of their inclusion in NDCs. Many countries have ongoing agricultural initiatives and policies aimed at improving sustainability and resilience that may not be explicitly mentioned in their NDCs. For example, the climate-smart agriculture approach has been adopted by various countries and organizations to address food security and climate challenges, often outside of the formal NDC framework.

Enhancing NDCs by addressing these limitations is necessary in order to unleash the agriculture sector's substantial potential to aid global climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. For instance, one estimate for Eastern Africa indicated that improved mitigation efforts in agriculture could surpass current NDC GHG targets for all other sectors in the region by up to 140%.

Greenhouse gas emissions from companies include direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, such as vehicles and on-site fuel use (scope 1), indirect emissions from purchased energy like electricity and heating (scope 2), and indirect emissions across a company’s value chain, including those from purchased goods, business travel, transportation, and product life cycles (scope 3). While many companies focus primarily on reducing their scope 1 and 2 emissions, self-reported scope 3 emissions account for an estimated 88% of total emissions from food and beverage companies, making them critical to address. As of 2023, 26% of the top 350 food and agriculture companies had established targets to reduce scope 3 emissions from their value chains.

While setting targets to reduce emissions is important for focusing attention on the issue and setting ambition, companies must take action to reduce their scope 3 emissions effectively. Such actions may include supplier engagement initiatives, investments in sustainable technologies and changes to product design and packaging.

As of 2023, only 16% of the top 350 food and agriculture companies by revenue had achieved an absolute reduction in their scope 3 emissions. The magnitude of these reductions varies significantly across companies. Eighteen percent of the food retailers, manufacturers/processors and companies focused on producing or processing animal proteins had achieved scope 3 reductions, while only 10% of restaurants and food service companies had achieved reductions. For example, Nestlé reported a 7.5% reduction in scope 3 emissions between 2020 and 2023, and Danone achieved a 12.5% reduction during the same time period. Many companies are still in the early stages of reducing their scope 3 emissions, and the reported reductions often represent initial progress rather than long-term sustained decreases.

Reducing scope 3 emissions not only helps in achieving alignment with the Paris Agreement goals but also helps reduce financial risks for individual companies. While the full economic impact of delayed action on Scope 3 emissions is still being studied, a 2023 survey by Deloitte and New York University's Stern Center for Sustainable Business found that 57% of executives reported significant losses due to inadequate sustainability investments. One report indicated that companies could face up to $120 billion in costs from environmental risks in their supply chains within the next five years, and another found that companies effectively managing their scope 3 emissions tended to outperform their competitors.