Agriculture and Climate Law: The Environmental Cost of Feeding the World

A legal and environmental examination of how modern agriculture contributes to climate change, and what can be done to regulate it.

Throughout human history, agriculture has been the catalyst for our survival. However, with an ever growing population and growing demand for importation of goods, “organic” or “natural” agriculture has been overtaken with a more modern form, which utilises a variety of technological and methodological shifts to keep up with such demand. Modern agriculture feeds the world, but with these advancements in technology and method, it also fuels climate change, biodiversity loss, water stress, and soil degradation.

The global food and agriculture system is responsible for a substantial share of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and legal regimes, though expanding, often lag behind scientific evidence and practical needs. This article maps the environmental footprint of agriculture, the reciprocal impacts of climate change on farming, and the adequacy of legal and policy frameworks in jurisdictions including the UK, EU, Asia, and the US. It then turns to fertilisers, soil health, and the oft‑repeated “60 harvests” claim, before examining the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture and climate‑smart agriculture. The conclusion offers a legal and policy pathway to reconcile food production with environmental protection.

Overview

Modern farming practices have become deeply intertwined with climate and environmental systems. Globally, agriculture and related land use (including deforestation and land clearing) generate roughly one-fifth of human caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.¹ For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency reports that agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) contributed about 22% of global GHG emissions in 2019.²

This share includes emissions from crop cultivation, livestock (especially methane from ruminant animals e.g. cows), and clearing natural ecosystems for farmland. As a comparison, the World Bank notes that the global food and agriculture system, which includes processing, transport, etc., emits roughly one-third of total anthropogenic GHGs.³

The emissions from agriculture is double edged: it is vital for producing food and fibre, yet it is a major driver of climate change. To keep feeding ourselves, we’ve turned farming into a cannibalistic act. Each harvest takes a bite out of tomorrow’s ability to grow.

Agriculture’s direct emissions are dominated mostly by methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) and agricultural activities, which includes animal husbandry and soil management, releases vast quantities of said gases, which have much higher global warming potentials than just CO₂.⁴

For instance, in the United Kingdom agriculture alone produced about 69% of the nation’s N₂O emissions and 48% of its methane emissions in 2020.⁵ Similarly, at the global level, livestock and manure produce most methane, while managed soils produce much of the N₂O.⁶ These gases trap heat roughly 265–300 times more strongly than CO₂ over a century.⁷

The fertiliser industry also adds to the carbon footprint: ammonia synthesis for nitrogen fertilisers currently emits about 1–2% of global CO₂ emissions.⁸ Agriculture has found itself to be a substantial source of warming gases, and continued expansion or intensification of farming without change is likely unsustainable.⁹

Climate Change Effects on Agriculture

The influence between agriculture and climate is two-way. Just as farming affects the atmosphere, climate change in turn is already affecting crop productivity. Rising temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, and increasing frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and heatwaves are stressing crops and livestock systems worldwide. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds “observed climate change is already affecting food security through increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and greater frequency of some extreme events”.¹⁰

This is particularly true in lower-latitude and tropical regions, where yields of staple crops like maise and wheat have declined due to warming and water stress.¹¹ Economic modelling also finds that anthropogenic climate change has already slowed global agricultural productivity growth, effectively erasing years of technological gains.¹²

Future climate models project that, without adaptation, these trends will worsen. It has been estimated that by 2050, climate-driven changes could raise cereal prices by 1–29% in various scenarios, with 1–183 million more people at risk of hunger globally, particularly in vulnerable low-income populations.¹³

The damage from extreme events is tangible. Floods, droughts, and storms can wipe out entire harvests or damage infrastructure. For example, a recent report from World Meteorological Organisation’s warns that extreme rainfall, droughts, and destructive tropical cyclones have already caused widespread damage in Asia’s agricultural regions.¹⁴

Once-predictable monsoons brought life to the fields. Now, the rains often arrive with cruel irregularity or violent excess, devastating crops instead of nourishing them, leading inflated prices to compensate for the poor yields.¹⁵ But the threat doesn’t end with erratic storms, as glacial melt in the Himalayas is reducing water security for major river systems, threatening irrigation in South Asia (explored in greater detail below).¹⁶

As those ice reserves dwindle, so too does the region’s long-term water security, placing yet another pillar of agricultural stability at risk. Changes such as these will undermine yields and make farming livelihoods precarious. This means fewer crops, higher hunger rates, and communities more vulnerable to the whims of a changing climate.

But these consequences are not restricted to poorer regions. In rich countries, advanced irrigation, insurance, and technology have historically provided a buffer, but even there, hotter days and new pests are reducing yields in some regions. Globally, food and agriculture are expected to face higher variability and more frequent crop failures unless resilience measures are taken (e.g. the World Bank notes agriculture produces one-third of emissions but only receives around 4% of climate finance).¹⁷

Farmers’ Vulnerability and Adaptation

Farmers, especially smallholders in vulnerable regions, find themselves on the front lines of climate change. Their options are often limited: changing planting dates, rotating or switching crops, investing in new infrastructure or inputs, or, in the worst case, abandoning cultivation. Evidence suggests that smallholder farmers in developing countries are the most vulnerable to heat, rainfall swings, and yield variability than farmers in wealthy nations.¹⁸

Unlike many farmers in Europe or North America, they often lack crop insurance, irrigation, or capital to adjust quickly. For instance, McKinsey analysts note that an Ethiopian coffee grower’s chance of a severe (25% or greater) crop loss could grow by over 30% by 2030 under climate projections, potentially cutting national GDP growth by around 3% if such shocks coincide.¹⁹ Though this might not sound like a large decrease – it is. Furthermore it is evidence of a trend, one that could potentially snowball if nothing changes.

Similar studies find that Mozambique’s maise harvest is projected to suffer large losses in drought years, significantly impacting food security and economy.²⁰ These “micro to macro” case studies really highlight how a few bad harvests can cascade into debt, food shortages, and economic decline.

In higher-latitude countries, farmers also see the pressure. The UK’s Alan Turing Institute, for example, warns that “in 50 years’ time it is likely that the crops we currently grow in the UK will no longer be viable to meet consumer demand” due to climate change.²¹

This is not speculation: even now, British farmers contend with more frequent heatwaves and water stress during growing seasons. Adaptation is already underway through research and technological adoption. Crop modelling projects are investigating resilient varieties and practices. However, adaptation has costs and limits. A poor yield in one year can force marginal farmers out of business, reducing local production and threatening rural economies.

Across the globe, farmers now face a difficult reality of needing to either adapt or risk losing everything. The unpredictable weather, rising costs, and shrinking harvests are driving many out of business. When fields go unplanted, it impacts both individual livelihoods of the farmers, and it adds pressure to global food supplies.

The effects depend on how fast and how severely things change. Farmers are trying to adapt but the current solutions are short-term fixes. They don’t solve the bigger issue: the climate is changing faster than the systems built around it. And for many, keeping up feels like trying to fix a sinking ship with duct tape.

Case Studies by Region

United Kingdom

In the UK, agriculture contributes a significant fraction of national GHGs, particularly in the form of N₂O and CH₄.²² Official statistics show UK farming emitted 69% of the country’s N₂O and 48% of its CH₄ in 2020.²³

Policymakers have introduced policies to make UK agriculture more sustainable. The post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes, including the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), pay farmers to adopt eco-friendly practices. As of April 2024, about 13,900 live SFI agreements have been made, covering over 2 million hectares and involving 13,400 farmers.²⁴ This rapid uptake suggests many UK farmers are engaging with climate-friendly measures (e.g. cover cropping, hedgerow planting, nutrient management) to meet funding requirements.

Despite these efforts, UK farm productivity is still threatened by climate trends. The Turing Institute’s project on crop modelling emphasises that current arable rotations may not withstand future climate shifts.²⁵ Practically speaking, this means farmers are exploring more irrigation, heat-tolerant crop varieties, and adaptive soil management. The UK government has also been funding research and providing guidance to help growers adjust. Nevertheless, industry groups have expressed concern that some proposed environmental regulations could burden food production.²⁶

Asia

Asia’s agriculture faces a climate double-blow: its own emissions and a rapidly changing climate. The continent has experienced record warmth, often the hottest or second-hottest year on record, and intense monsoons.²⁷ The WMO warns that “Asia is warming nearly twice as fast as the global average”, driving more extreme weather.²⁸ Heatwaves are now prolonged, and as mentioned earlier, glaciers in the Himalayas are receding thus jeopardising long-term irrigation supplies,²⁹ and both floods and droughts have become more severe.

In 2023 alone, storms and floods accounted for over 80% of Asia’s climate-related disasters, causing more than 2,000 deaths and affecting nine million people.³⁰ Intense monsoon floods in South Asia and typhoons in Southeast Asia have repeatedly destroyed crops and livelihoods. Asia is the world’s most disaster-prone region, with storms and floods causing the majority of climate-related losses.

These changes exacerbate an already existing squeeze. Asia must feed an enormous and growing population projected at around 9.7 billion globally by 2050,³¹ on diminishing natural resources. This population growth implies pressure for around 70% more food‑calorie production, increasing the stress on land, water and climate unless productivity gains are decoupled from emissions.³²

Mega-deltas that support hundreds of millions such as Mekong, Ganges-Brahmaputra, are threatened by sea-level rise, salinisation, and cyclones. Groundwater in some regions is expected to drop by 2 meters by 2030, and pollution, including arsenic, bacteria, and nitrates, is already widespread.³³ Water scarcity is becoming acute in places like India and China due to overuse and erratic rainfall.³⁴ To add to this dilemma agrochemical run‑off from fertiliser and pesticides further endangers food and water security.³⁵

Current food systems are depleting Asia’s resources faster than they can regenerate. The decline in crop yield and variable harvests have already contributed to nutrition problems in some regions. The UNEP’s 2024 Global Resources Outlook warns that if present consumption and production trends continue to 2060, resource extraction and environmental damage will intensify, but it also shows that there’s a narrow opportunity for an alternative, sustainable pathway.³⁶

In response, some Asian countries invest in improved irrigation, drought-resistant crop varieties, and early-warning systems. However, much of Asian agriculture still relies on small farmers with limited capacity to adapt, making the region particularly exposed to the “vicious circle” of higher demand and more extreme weather.³⁷

Europe

European agriculture is governed by stringent policies aimed at balancing food production with environmental protection. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2023–2027 is explicitly aligned with climate and biodiversity goals.³⁸ It emphasises sustainable management of natural resources and climate action while supporting farm incomes.³⁹

Under the CAP and the broader Green Deal, the EU has set ambitious targets for 2030. For example, to protect at least 30% of EU land under conservation (Natura 2000 network), ensure 25% of EU farmland is organic, and halve nutrient losses and pesticide risks.⁴⁰ These biodiversity strategy goals also aim to reverse pollinator declines and enhance ecosystem services.

In early 2024, the European Commission took an even more aggressive step by proposing a legally-binding EU target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% below 1990 levels by 2040.⁴¹ a landmark step far beyond current global commitments. While widely praised by climate advocates, this goal is also a political test, pushing EU institutions to reconcile ecological ambition with rural realities.

This landmark target is far beyond current commitments and has raised concern among many farmers, who note the economic and practical challenges of meeting it. Farmer groups across Europe (not just the UK) have protested that such targets could force rapid, costly changes in cropping and livestock practices.⁴²

The outcome of the EU’s “Strategic Dialogue” on agriculture will shape how these climate goals are balanced with food security and rural livelihoods. The Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU agriculture seeks to mediate these tensions across the entire agri‑food chain.⁴³ This forum brings together stakeholders from the entire agri‑food chain: farmers, cooperatives, businesses, NGOs, financial institutions, academics, and rural communities, to shape a shared vision for the future of European agriculture. The outcome of this dialogue is crucial in determining how the EU balances its climate goals with food security, rural economies, and public support.

Fertiliser Use and Environmental Toll

The mid-20th century “Green Revolution” demonstrated that synthetic fertilisers could greatly boost yields and feed the growing population. However, fertilisers embody a classic dilemma: too little use limits food security, while too much causes pollution. Furthermore, and as aforementioned, crops typically take up only about half of applied nitrogen, the rest escaping into waterways or the atmosphere, including as nitrous oxide, a GHG roughly 265–300 times more potent than CO₂ over a century.⁴⁴

In many developing regions, notably sub-Saharan Africa, fertiliser use is still very low. For example, one study notes that SSA uses only about 20 kg of nitrogen fertiliser per hectare, far below the global average (~135 kg/ha).⁴⁵ This low input contributes to persistently low yields and food deficits in places that could otherwise be agriculturally productive, as well as pushing expansion into natural habitats.⁴⁶

In contrast, in most parts of Asia and the Americas, fertiliser use is much higher. Yet crops typically absorb only about half of the applied nitrogen.⁴⁷ The rest is lost to the environment: it can leach into waterways, causing eutrophication and dead zones, or volatilise as ammonia or nitrous oxide.

Empirical data indicate that roughly two-thirds of nitrogen and half of phosphorus fertiliser applied globally polluting waters like rivers and lakes, leading to eutrophication and loss of biodiversity.⁴⁸ Meanwhile, nitrogen that enters the soil can be microbially converted into nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is a powerful greenhouse gas (with ~265× the warming power of CO₂),⁴⁹ and it also depletes stratospheric ozone.

The manufacture and use of nitrogen fertiliser itself contributes to climate change. About 1–2% of global CO₂ emissions come from ammonia (nitrogen fertiliser) production, due to the high heat and pressure needed.⁵⁰ Research finds synthetic nitrogen fertilisers account for roughly 2.1% of total global greenhouse gases.⁵¹ In practical terms, inefficient fertiliser use not only wastes farmers’ money but also means agriculture indirectly emits carbon.

Here is a summary of some key figures on fertiliser and emissions:

Fertiliser & Related Emissions	Approximate Magnitude
Crops’ uptake of applied nitrogen	~50% (the rest is lost)
Nitrous oxide’s GWP (100-year)	~265–300 × CO₂
Global CO₂ from ammonia (Haber-Bosch process)	1–2% of world CO₂
Fraction of global GHGs from synthetic nitrogen fertilisers	~2.0–2.1%

Excess fertiliser also harms soil and biodiversity. Over-application can acidify soils, reduce organic matter, and alter beneficial microbes. The run-off of nutrients fuels algal blooms that kill aquatic life. Recognising these impacts, some regions are taking regulatory action. For example, the EU’s “Farm to Fork” strategy plans to cut nutrient losses by 50% by 2030⁵² (see Table below), and certain US states regulate nutrient runoff from farms.

Soil Health and the “60 Harvests” Myth

It has been claimed that we have only a few decades of topsoil left before it is all eroded. This One oft-repeated figure is “60 harvests remaining.” The only reason I have decided to mention this in the article is due to the popularity (at least within the UK) of Clarkson’s Farm. This fantastical figure was mentioned and people have naturally taken it as absolute fact.

Fortunately for us this number lacks basis. Global soils degrade at very uneven rates. According to Our World in Data, while some severely eroding fields might exhaust their fertile topsoil within a century or less, many other agricultural soils can remain productive for hundreds to thousands of years under current management.⁵³

In fact, roughly half of global agricultural land has an estimated soil longevity exceeding 1000 years if erosion continues at present rates.⁵⁴ Only a minority of land (e.g. steep or heavily farmed hills) would erode within 60–100 years under current practices.

The “60 harvests” claim is considered hyperbolic by soil scientists, a “fantasy”, “overblown” and “nonsensical”.⁵⁵ It oversimplifies a complex issue: soil health depends on local factors (climate, topography, practice) and can be managed.

Practices like terracing, cover-cropping, and reduced tillage can dramatically slow erosion. International bodies like the UN’s Global Soil Partnership emphasise that while soil loss is a serious problem, contributing to reduced yields and carbon loss, it can be mitigated with improved stewardship.

Policy and Legal Frameworks

All of the above was my way of laying the ground work so we can better understand the policy aspect. Governments have a range of laws addressing agriculture’s environmental impacts, though few focus squarely on the climate.

United States

In the United States, classic statutes like the Clean Water Act (1972)⁵⁶ regulates agricultural run‑off indirectly, but non‑point source pollution remains difficult to control. While the Clean Air Act (1970)⁵⁷ indirectly cover some farming pollution, for example, nutrient runoff must comply with water quality standards, and agricultural burning or engine emissions are subject to air regulations. Pesticides and fertilisers are also regulated under federal laws (e.g. FIFRA for pesticides),⁵⁸ while the Endangered Species Act can constrain agricultural practices where critical habitats are affected.⁵⁹

In practice, however, these laws often face challenges: non-point pollution from farms is hard to enforce, and climate-related impacts (e.g. pests spreading or shifting rainfall) fall outside their original scope. Although the US has the EPA and USDA to administer their own programs to support climate-smart practices,⁶⁰ fragmentation and funding gaps persist as an issue and only make enforcement more difficult.

Many of these frameworks were never designed to address climate change directly, and they remain ill-equipped to handle emerging stressors like shifting pest populations, invasive species, or increasing salinisation, consequences that now shape American farmland in increasingly erratic ways.

Voluntary compliance programs, though well-intended, often lack teeth, and underfunded agencies face difficulties in monitoring and enforcement, turning critical statutory protections into paper shields

European Union

The European Union has a more comprehensive regulatory approach. The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) embeds environmental conditions into farm subsidies.⁶¹ But also the Nitrates Directive, Pesticides Regulation, and the European Green Deal collectively also help frame the EU’s agricultural transition.⁶²

Under CAP 2023–2027, member states must allocate some funding to climate-friendly practices, maintain ecological area measures, and protect habitats. The CAP now explicitly aims to “help tackle climate change and the sustainable management of natural resources”.⁶³

In addition, EU laws like the Nitrates Directive and Pesticide Regulation set limits on fertiliser/pesticide use and water pollution. Beyond agriculture-specific rules, the EU’s broader Green Deal and Biodiversity Strategy 2030 tie farming into continental climate goals: e.g. land conversion rules to limit deforestation, targets for organic farming and nutrient reduction, and a 2040 goal (currently proposed) of 90% emission cuts.⁶⁴

Yet, in the face of escalating climatic onslaughts, the efficacy of these laws is increasingly subject to scrutiny. A number of academic reviews have noted that Europe’s existing legal tools, commendable though they are, lack sufficient depth to address the indirect but escalating impacts of climate volatility on agriculture,⁶⁵ such as the pest populations and increase in soil salinity.⁶⁶ Additionally, the inefficacy of voluntary compliance programs and the underfunding of key regulatory agencies further undermine these laws’ effectiveness.⁶⁷

The EU’s vision for 2050 is less than ideal.⁶⁸ Unless existing policies are updated with greater enforceability and integrated resilience planning, they risk becoming brittle ramparts against a much more turbulent environmental future.

International Frameworks

On the international level, the Paris Agreement mentions agriculture indirectly (it acknowledges land use and calls for resilience in food systems), and many countries include farming in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). A related UN initiative, the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture,⁶⁹ was established in 2017 to give agriculture a standing place in climate negotiations.

The Koronivia process represents a major shift by involving both the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), highlighting that implementation, not just policy, is now a priority.⁷⁰ Its focus spans key areas like soil carbon, water and nutrient management, and livestock systems, but also includes adaptation and food security dimensions.

Recent Koronivia events have further developed this agenda, allowing countries to share practical experiences and co-develop strategies. However, the strength of this framework depends on how well it integrates with national laws and whether adequate support reaches smallholder farmers. The potential for closer collaborations with other UNFCCC bodies and enhanced access to support for climate actions in agriculture is promising. Still, it will require careful planning and coordination to ensure that these collaborations are effective and that the support provided is adequate and reaches the intended beneficiaries.⁷¹

But agriculture often receives far less policy attention and climate funding than its emissions share would suggest. For example, a recent World Bank analysis emphasises that food systems cause about one-third of GHGs but get only around 4% of global climate finance.⁷²

This mismatch, between agriculture’s footprint and the financial/institutional response, remains one of the great unresolved contradictions of climate policy. On top of this many national legal frameworks still lack dedicated laws to tackle climate change in agriculture, which hampers the deployment of climate‑smart agriculture (CSA).⁷³

This absence of legal architecture means countries are relying heavily on piecemeal measures or temporary incentive schemes. Experts argue that unless legal reforms occur, climate-smart agriculture risks remaining a niche solution rather than a structural shift in global farming models.

Even in countries with CSA programs, adoption is uneven. Social and cultural factors, such as land tenure insecurity, trust in institutions, political ideologies, or resistance to top-down governance, can all inhibit uptake. Finance, and institutional capacity also impacts compliance.⁷⁴

Sustainable Farming and Innovation

Despite these pressures, a range of sustainable agriculture practices is emerging under labels like “climate-smart agriculture” (CSA). CSA advocates a “triple win”: increasing productivity and income, building resilience to climate shocks, and reducing/removing greenhouse gases.⁷⁵

Practices under CSA include conservation agriculture (no-till, cover crops), agroforestry, improved water management, and better livestock feeding. These can sequester carbon, rebuild soil, and buffer crops against extremes. For example, planting nitrogen-fixing cover crops can restore fertility without synthetic fertilisers, while agroforestry systems add shade and wind protection.

Case studies around the world show that CSA techniques can boost yields and incomes while lowering emissions in many contexts.⁷⁶

These results are promising, but implementation is context‑specific and constrained by finance, political norms, and cultural factors.⁷⁷ Therefore, CSA is not a one-size-fits-all solution. What works in one region may not elsewhere; social factors in particular (land tenure, training, markets) greatly affect adoption.

There is also ongoing debate about who CSA programs ultimately benefit, some critics note that certain schemes favour large agribusinesses over smallholders, or privilege tech-heavy solutions that may not be viable in lower-income rural settings.

Even so, CSA reflects a paradigm shift: away from viewing agriculture purely as a productivity engine, and toward seeing it as an adaptive, ecological system with political, social, and environmental dimensions.

There is ongoing debate about definitions and unintended consequences (e.g. whether some CSA programs favour large agribusinesses). Nonetheless, the concept signals a shift towards integrated, climate-conscious farming. Alongside agroecological methods, technological innovations offer hope. Precision farming tools such as GPS-guided equipment, drones, and soil sensors, allow farmers to apply water, fertiliser, and pesticides much more efficiently, minimising waste and runoff.⁷⁸

For instance, recent field studies have demonstrated that drones with multispectral imaging and AI analysis can guide nitrogen application with high precision.⁷⁹ In one experiment, researchers used aerial drones to assess hemp crop health and determine optimal N-fertiliser levels; the technology allowed farmers to apply nutrients at the right time and amount, potentially reducing excess use and protecting the environment.⁸⁰

Similarly, satellite data and AI models are now helping to predict disease outbreaks or yield shortfalls, enabling preemptive action. On the regenerative side, practices like no-till, rotational grazing, and perennial polycultures are receiving renewed interest for their potential to restore soil carbon and biodiversity.

As technology and knowledge advance, there is reason for cautious optimism. The transition to a sustainable food system will require major changes, from farming methods to diets and supply chains, but each of these innovations and policies can contribute.

Outlook

The legal landscape surrounding agriculture and climate change is complex. Many national legal frameworks still do not include laws and measures specifically intended to tackle climate change in the agriculture sectors.⁸¹ This gap in legislation presents a significant challenge as it hinders the implementation of climate-smart agricultural practices and the achievement of international climate change goals.⁸²

International frameworks (Paris, UN Sustainable Development Goals) have put agriculture on the climate agenda, and importantly and many governments are enacting incentives (e.g. subsidies for cover crops, payments for carbon farming). Private-sector and academic research is also flooding into climate-friendly agriculture, from stress-tolerant crop varieties to soil microbiome therapies.

Moving forward, a coordinated approach is needed. One that aligns agricultural policy with climate and environmental goals, empowers farmers with better information and tools, and supports sustainable intensification where needed. In practice, this means restructuring subsidies to reward ecological outcomes (not just output), investing in rural adaptation (e.g. irrigation, extension services), and promoting research on resilient crop systems.

The evidence shows that such measures can pay dividends: yields can still grow even as ecosystems recover, and economies can prosper with healthier farmland. The future of the planet depends on how well society can manage this delicate balance: to continue feeding the world without further degrading the land, water, and climate on which all life depends.

Given the scale and urgency of the environmental challenges posed by modern agriculture, there is a growing consensus among experts that current laws and regulations need to be reformed and strengthened.

Optimism?

Addressing the environmental impact of agriculture requires a robust legal framework that promotes sustainable practices. International agreements like the Paris Accord have set the stage for climate action, but agricultural emissions often receive less focus than industrial emissions.

Technological advancements offer hope in the quest for sustainable agriculture. Precision farming, which utilises data analytics, satellite imagery, and IoT (Internet of Things) devices, allows farmers to optimize resource use and reduce waste. By applying water, fertilizers, and pesticides with pinpoint accuracy, farmers can minimise their environmental footprint.⁸³ Drones and AI-powered tools help monitor crop health, predict yields, and manage pests more effectively, reducing the need for chemical interventions.

Regenerative agriculture is a potential shift in farming practices, focusing on restoring and hopefully enhancing the health of the ecosystem. Techniques like no-till farming, cover cropping, and rotational grazing improve soil health, ideally increasing biodiversity, and sequester carbon. Regenerative practices aim to mitigate climate change, but it also enhance farm resilience and productivity, creating a sustainable food system.

As we till the earth to feed a growing population, we must cultivate not just crops but a commitment to sustainability. The plowshare, can become a tool of regeneration and hope, sowing the seeds of a greener, more resilient world (hopefully with more than 60 harvests).

Tables

Table 1. Fertiliser Use and Emissions (approximate values)

Description	Approximate Value	Notes
Crop uptake of applied nitrogen fertiliser	~50%	Much of the remainder is lost to runoff or N₂O84
Global GHG from synthetic N fertilisers	~2.0–2.1% of total emissions	Includes manufacture and use85
CO₂ emissions from ammonia production	~1–2% of global CO₂	Haber–Bosch process energy requirement86
Nitrous oxide global warming potential (100-yr)	≈265–300× CO₂	Strong GHG from soil/fertiliser management87

Table 2. Selected EU 2030 Biodiversity and Agriculture Targets (from the EU Biodiversity Strategy)

Target	EU Goal by 2030
EU land under protection (Natura 2000 network)	≥30% of EU territory
Agricultural land under high-diversity features	≥10% of farmland (e.g. hedges)
Agricultural land farmed organically	≥25% of farmland
Nutrient loss from fertilisers	-50% (from current levels)
Risk/use of chemical pesticides	-50% (from current levels)
Halt decline of wild pollinators	Achieve by 2030

Each target in Table 2 comes from the EU’s 2030 Biodiversity Strategy.⁸⁸ These measures illustrate how regional policy is trying to align agriculture with environmental protection.

References

1. Gowri Koneswaran and Danielle Nierenberg, ‘Global farm animal production and global warming: impacting and mitigating climate change’ Environ Health Perspect 116 5 (2008) 578-82 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2367646/; see also Shansong Huang, et al ‘Contribution of agricultural land conversion to global GHG emissions: A meta-analysis’ Science of Total Env 876 (2023) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723008859 ↩︎
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data (EPA, 2019) https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data ↩︎
3. World Bank, ‘Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System’ (2024) https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/publication/recipe-for-livable-planet ↩︎
4. Hanqin Tian and others, ‘A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks’ (2020) 586 Nature 248 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2780-0 ↩︎
5. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, ‘Agri‑climate report 2022’ (GOV.UK, 2022) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agri-climate-report-2022/agri-climate-report-2022 ↩︎
6. Ihsan Pence, et al ‘Animal-based CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O emissions analysis: Machine learning predictions by agricultural regions and climate dynamics in varied scenarios’ Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 226 (2024) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168169924008147 ↩︎
7. Tian (n 4) ↩︎
8. UCLA Samueli School of Engineering, ‘Greening Up the Production of Ammonia, the Key Ingredient for Fertilizer’ (2023) https://samueli.ucla.edu/greening-up-the-production-of-ammonia-the-key-ingredient-for-fertilizer/ ↩︎
9. World Bank, ‘Climate-Smart Agriculture’ (2024) https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climate-smart-agriculture ↩︎
10. Rachel Bezner Kerr and others, ‘Food, fibre, and other ecosystem products’ in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC, 2022) ch 5 ↩︎
11. ibid ↩︎
12. Ariel Ortiz-Bobea and others, ‘Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth’ (2021) 11 Nature Climate Change 306 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01000-1 ↩︎
13. ibid ↩︎
14. World Meteorological Organization, State of the Climate in Asia 2023 (WMO, 2024) https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-climate-asia-2023 ↩︎
15. Bob Berwyn, ‘This Summer’s Heat Waves Could Be the Strongest Climate Signal Yet’ Inside Climate News (2018) ↩︎
16. World Meteorological Organization, State of the Climate in Asia 2024 (WMO, 2025) https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-climate-asia-2024 ↩︎
17. World Bank (n 9) ↩︎
18. Lola Woetzel and others, ‘Effects of climate change on agriculture in Africa’ (McKinsey Global Institute, 2020) https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/how-will-african-farmers-adjust-to-changing-patterns-of-precipitation ↩︎
19. ibid ↩︎
20. ibid ↩︎
21. Evangeline Corcoran and others, ‘Impact of climate change on agriculture: building next-generation models to support resilient agricultural policy’ (Alan Turing Institute, nd) https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/impact-climate-change-agriculture ↩︎
22. Agri‑climate report 2022 (n 9) ↩︎
23. ibid ↩︎
24. Amy Cairns, ‘The Sustainable Farming Incentive: stats you need to know’ (Defra Farming Blog, 3 May 2024) https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/03/stats-you-need-to-know-about-the-sustainable-farming-incentive/ ↩︎
25. Evangeline Corcoran (n 21) ↩︎
26. ‘Industrial Agriculture and Environmental Impacts’ James Lind Institute (2019) https://jliedu.ch/industrial-agriculture-environmental-impacts ↩︎
27. WMO (n 16) ↩︎
28. ibid ↩︎
29. ibid ↩︎
30. ‘WMO Report: Asia Hit Hardest by Climate Change and Extreme Weather’ United Nations (2024) ↩︎
31. World Bank (n 9) ↩︎
32. Wanglin Ma and Dil Rahut, ‘Climate-smart agriculture for a sustainable future’ (ADBI Blog, 2024) https://www.asiapathways-adbi.org/2024/06/climate-smart-agriculture-for-a-sustainable-future/ ↩︎
33. Shamsudduha, Bhanja, Nowreen ‘Water Supply Sustainability and Challenges in Asian Megadeltas Under Global Change’ Water and Climate, Vol 6 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2024.1415097 ↩︎
34. WMO (n 16) ↩︎
35. Md Shamsudduha, Shariful Hasan Bhanja and Nusrat Noor Nowreen, ‘Water supply sustainability and challenges in Asian megadeltas under global change’ (2024) 6 Frontiers in Water 1415097 ↩︎
36. International Resource Panel, Global Resources Outlook 2024 (UNEP, 2024) https://www.unep.org/resources/Global-Resource-Outlook-2024 ↩︎
37. WMO (n 16) ↩︎
38. European Commission, Common Agricultural Policy 2023–2027: At a glance (2022) https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-12/csp-at-a-glance-eu-countries_en.pdf ↩︎
39. ibid ↩︎
40. European Commission, Enhancing Agricultural Biodiversity (2024) https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/biodiversity_en ↩︎
41. Kate Abnett, ‘EU Commission proposes 2040 climate target with flexibilities’ Reuters (2025) https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/eu-commission-proposes-2040-climate-target-with-flexibilities-2025-07-02/ ↩︎
42. Orla Dwyer, ‘Analysis: How do the EU farmer protests relate to climate change?’ Carbon Brief (2024) https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-do-the-eu-farmer-protests-relate-to-climate-change/ ↩︎
43. European Commission, ‘Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU agriculture’ (2024) https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/main-initiatives-strategic-dialogue-future-eu-agriculture_en ↩︎
44. Tian (n 4) ↩︎
45. Victor Ongoma, et al, ‘Closing yield gap for sustainable food security in sub-Saharan Africa – progress, challenges, and opportunities‘ Climate-Smart Agronomy 7 (2025) ↩︎
46. Hannah Ritchie, ‘To protect the world’s wildlife we must improve crop yields, especially across Africa’ (Our World in Data, 2021) https://ourworldindata.org/yields-habitat-loss ↩︎
47. Keira Havens, ‘Developing Clean Nitrogen’ Pivot Bio (2020) https://www.pivotbio.com/blog/developing-clean-nitrogen ↩︎
48. Hannah Ritchie, ‘Excess fertiliser use: which countries cause environmental damage by overapplying fertilisers?’ (Our World in Data, 2021) https://ourworldindata.org/excess-fertilizer ↩︎
49. Stefano Menegat, Lorenzo Ledo and Adrianito Custo, ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from global production and use of nitrogen synthetic fertilisers in agriculture’ (2022) Scientific Reports 12(1) 1 ↩︎
50. Anna Zavaleeva and Vladislav Rossinsky ‘Carbon footprint from the use of fertilizers’ HPBS https://hpb-s.com/en/news/carbon-footprint-from-the-use-of-fertilizers/ ↩︎
51. Menegat (n 49) ↩︎
52. European Commission (n 38) ↩︎
53. Hannah Ritchie, ‘Do we only have 60 harvests left?’ (Our World in Data, 2021) https://ourworldindata.org/soil-lifespans ↩︎
54. ibid ↩︎
55. James Wong, ‘The idea that there are only 100 harvests left is just a fantasy’ (2019) New Scientist; Philip Case, ‘“Only 60 years of harvests left” claim is a myth, says study’ (Farmers Weekly, 2021) https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/only-60-years-of-harvests-left-claim-is-a-myth-says-study ↩︎
56. Clean Water Act 1972, 33 USC § 1251 et seq ↩︎
57. Clean Air Act 1970, 42 USC § 7401 et seq ↩︎
58. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 1996, 7 USC § 136 et seq ↩︎
59. Endangered Species Act 1973, 16 USC § 1531 et seq ↩︎
60. EPA, ‘Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply’ (2020) https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply ↩︎
61. European Commission (n 38) ↩︎
62. European Environment Agency, The European environment — state and outlook 2020 (EEA, 2019) https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/soer-2020 ↩︎
63. ibid ↩︎
64. Abnett (n 41); European Commission (n 38) ↩︎
65. Chang‐Gil Kim ‘The Impact of Climate Change on the Agricultural Sector: Implications of the Agro‐Industry for Low Carbon, Green Growth Strategy and Roadmap for the East Asian Region’ Korea Rural Economic Institute https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/5.%20The-Impact-of-Climate-Change-on-the-Agricultural-Sector.pdf ↩︎
66. Denis L Corwin, ‘Climate change impacts on soil salinity in agricultural areas’ European Journal of Soil Science 72 (2) (2020) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342147221_Climate_change_impacts_on_soil_salinity_in_agricultural_areas ↩︎
67. Robyn Clark, James Reed, Terry Sunderland, ‘Bridging funding gaps for climate and sustainable development: Pitfalls, progress and potential of private finance’ Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 335-346 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.013 ↩︎
68. The European environment — state and outlook 2020, European Environment Agency (2019) https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/soer-2020 ↩︎
69. UNFCCC, ‘Koronivia joint work on agriculture’ https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/agriculture/KJWA ↩︎
70. ‘Koronivia joint work on agriculture’ UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/agriculture/KJWA; see also ‘Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture’ FAO https://www.fao.org/koronivia/en/ ↩︎
71. ibid ↩︎
72. World Bank (n 9) ↩︎
73. FAO, Agriculture and climate change: Law and governance in support of climate smart agriculture and international climate change goals (FAO, 2020) https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c1a366bc-0667-4cfa-aeeb-ead2fa93cbd6/content ↩︎
74. US Climate Resilience Toolkit, ‘Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation’ (2024) https://toolkit.climate.gov/case-studies/climate-change-and-agriculture-united-states-effects-and-adaptation-1 ↩︎
75. World Bank (n 9) ↩︎
76. ibid ↩︎
77. Wanglin Ma and Dil Rahut, ‘Climate-smart agriculture: adoption, impacts, and implications for sustainable development’ (2024) 29 Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 44; Lola Woetzel and others, ‘Effects of climate change on agriculture in Africa’ (McKinsey Global Institute, 2020) ↩︎
78. See eg Peter Aagaard and others, ‘From green ammonia to lower‑carbon foods’ (McKinsey, 2023) https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/from-green-ammonia-to-lower-carbon-foods ↩︎
79. Lourdes Mederos, ‘Drones with AI help farmers optimize nitrogen fertilizer use’ PHYS.org (2025) https://phys.org/news/2025-05-drones-ai-farmers-optimize-nitrogen.html ↩︎
80. ibid ↩︎
81. ‘Agriculture and climate change, Law and governance in support of climate smart agriculture and international climate change goals’ FAO United Nations (2020) https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c1a366bc-0667-4cfa-aeeb-ead2fa93cbd6/content ↩︎
82. ibid ↩︎
83. European Commission, ‘Precision Farming’ EIP-AGRI https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/digitising-agriculture/developing-digital-technologies/precision-farming-0.html ↩︎
84. Havens (n 47) ↩︎
85. University of Exeter, ‘Fertilizers cause more than 2% of global emissions’ PHYS.org (2022) https://phys.org/news/2022-09-fertilizers-global-emissions.html ↩︎
86. Zavaleeva (n 50) ↩︎
87. PHYS (n 79) ↩︎
88. European Commission (n 38) ↩︎