Sensitivity of the global agricultural sector to changes in climate policy - EU countries compared to the rest of the world

The fundamental importance of the climate for the functioning of humanity makes the problem of climate change, one of the real issues of global politics today [Haibach, Schneider 2013]. The basic climate change indicator has been the average air temperature increase observed over several decades [WMO 2023]. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the average global temperature in 2022 was about 1.15°C higher than the average temperature in 1850–1900. It has also been predicted with a probability of 66% that this parameter will exceed the value of 1.5°C at least once in the period of 2023–2027 [WMO 2023]. The scientific consensus is that stopping global warming at 1.5°C compared to the pre-industrial era will avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, but achieving this goal requires reducing global CO₂ emissions by 45% before 2030 [IPCC 2018]. So far, the implications of the increase in average temperature include many negative natural phenomena, including the intensification of extreme weather phenomena (droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc.), melting of ice in the Arctic, the retreat of glaciers, and an increase in water levels in the seas and oceans. Data from Munich Re-NatCatSERVICE [Insurance Information Institute 2019] show that between 1980 and 2018, the number of weather-related natural disasters almost quadrupled. Analysis of the literature on climate science indicates that 99% of researchers actively publishing on this topic agree that climate change has anthropogenic causes [Myers et al. 2021]. Suppose human activity is the cause of the increase in the average global temperature. In that case, it can then be assumed that it is also up to people to stop such dangerous trends (unless processes are triggered that will have irreversible consequences).

This logic gives rise to the basic assumptions of current global climate policy. It is the contemporary basis of the Paris Agreement of 2015, which was concluded within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) framework and signed initially at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Its goal is to stop global warming at the above-mentioned level of 1.5°C relative to the pre-industrial era [Paris Agreement 2015]. As part of implementing the Climate Agreement, the European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling on the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 and reduce GHG emissions by 55% (compared to 1990) by 2030.

This was then translated into legally binding obligations [EU Council 2023a]. The particular package of political initiatives aimed at achieving climate neutrality (net-zero GHG emissions) is called the “European Green Deal,” and the “Fit for 55” package is intended to translate its assumptions into specific provisions [EU Council 2023b]. One of the key elements of the “Green Deal” is the transition of many economic sectors, including the agricultural sector, to lower-emission business models [EU Council 2023b]. Such transformation will require many changes in production processes to reduce CO₂ emissions significantly.

In the case of agriculture, this process is made particularly difficult by the strategic importance of food production for the functioning of societies and the difficulty of implementing ambitious climate policy goals without changes in the structure and level of agricultural production [Nabuurs et al. 2022; Wąs et al. 2022]. Due to the different levels of GHG emissions associated with individual agricultural activities, we should expect climate policy to have different impacts on agriculture in other world regions, varying even across the EU itself. In this context, this study aimed to assess the agricultural sector’s sensitivity in different parts of the world to the effect of implementing possible climate-policy scenarios with particular emphasis on the EU countries.

The development of climate policy is closely related to growing awareness of the impact of GHG emissions (mainly CO₂) on the state of the atmosphere and environmental conditions of Earth. The consequences of rapid industrial development, notably the burning of fossil fuels disturbing the balance of the carbon cycle, began to constitute an important area of interest for scientists and politicians by the mid-20th century, though the first estimates of excess CO₂ emissions as a result of human activity had appeared as early, as the end of the 19th century [Crawford 1997; Revelle, Suess 1957; Callendar 1938]. An official scientific report about the threats related to the accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere was presented to the President of the United States for the first time in 1965 [The White House 1965]. This report was based on many scientific works from the preceding several dozen years, and many of the hypotheses it put forward can be considered justified in retrospect [Sierpińska 2016].

Another important event in global climate policy formation was the UN Conference, organised in Stockholm in 1972 under the slogan “We only have one Earth.” Although this conference did not focus on the problem of climate change, it instigated international cooperation in environmental protection. One of its measurable effects was the Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972) and the establishment of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) [UN 1972].

Another important step in spreading awareness of the threats resulting from CO₂ emissions was the American Domestic Council’s announcement of the “U.S. Climate Program” in 1974, aiming to coordinate research on the climate and weather [Sierpińska 2022]. In the same year, the WMO Organization established an expert panel on climate change [Sierpińska 2022]. In 1979, the World Climate Conference was held in Geneva, establishing the World Climate Program to support the coordination of global climate research [EU Parliament 2023]. As part of this program, several expert meetings have been organised since 1980, leading to the formation of the scientific consensus that GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and industrial gases) can warm the Earth’s surface by several degrees and that this may pose a severe threat [Sierpińska 2022].

In 1985, a report from the conference in Villach, Austria, was published [Word Climate Program 1985], which not only expressed a consensus about the possible consequences of GHG emissions but also contained guidelines on the actions the international community should take to deal with the growing problem of climate change. However, though the position of scientists was clear, it was not approved by political bodies, especially in the countries responsible for the largest part of emissions (the USA and the oil-exporting countries). Because of this, a search began for a model of climate research that would not raise doubts among political decision-makers. The result of these efforts was the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the auspices of the United Nations in 1988, whose aim was to provide a coordinated international-scale scientific analysis of the impact of climate change on the environment, society and economy, and to search for remedies [Bolin 2007]. This team was a scientific and intergovernmental organisation that was assembled to guarantee the full credibility of the analyses it created.

The first report of this team was published in 1990 and confirmed the ongoing warming of the planet. However, it was noted that time was still needed to be sure that this process resulted from the intensification of the greenhouse effect [Agrawala 1998]. The second report, published in 1995, “suggested a discernible human impact on the climate.” The third IPCC Report, released in 2001, indicated it was 66% likely that greenhouse gases cause most global warming; the fourth report in 2007 stated that it is “very likely” (with a probability of 90%); in the fifth report of 2013, it was emphasised that it is “extremely probable” (95% probability) that humans have had a dominant influence on global warming; the sixth report of 2022 stated that it is “indisputable” that human activity is responsible for global warming [Popkiewicz 2022]. It is worth noting that due to the functional mechanisms of the IPCC, which requires the consent of all governments participating in the Team, the reports prepared usually reflect compromises and are more conservative than the positions presented by climate scientists alone [Popkiewicz 2013].

Aside from the milestones in the development of global and European climate policy, such as the creation of the IPCC and the publication of its reports, it is also worth mentioning the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, during which the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” was signed [UN 1992]. In its original version, the agreement did not include binding orders regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. Still, only a few years later, provisions for emission limits were added to the convention. As part of implementing the provisions of the Climate Convention, the so-called “Conferences of the Parties” (COP) was formed, the purpose of which is to review progress in the implementation of the convention.

At the third such conference (COP3) in Kyoto, a supplementary document to the convention known as the Kyoto Protocol was signed, establishing the first specific commitments to GHG reduction. This protocol is an international treaty that was entered into force in 2005 and ratified by Poland in 2002 [Journal of Laws 2002]. The conditions for the entry into force of this agreement was ratification by 55 countries producing a total of 55% of global CO₂ emissions. Under this agreement, the signatory countries agreed that by 2012, they would reduce their GHG emissions by the amount indicated in the annexe to the treaty (at least 5% relative to 1990 levels). Individual countries could achieve their goals using governmental measures and market mechanisms, perhaps the most famous of which has been “emissions trading” [UN 2008]. As part of the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union (then 15 countries) committed to reducing emissions by 8% [EUR-lex 1997]. However, in 2007, more ambitious goals were adopted, obliging the EU to reduce GHG emissions by 20% (compared to 1990 levels). This was the result of the adoption in 2008 of the so-called Climate and Energy Package (3×20 package), which, from the perspective of 2020, intends, in addition to emission reduction among other aspects, to increase the share of renewable energy in total consumption to 20%, and increase energy efficiency by 20% [EC 2020].

Another milestone in the development of global climate policy was the agreement on new climate goals during COP21 in Paris in 2015 (the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2020) [UN 2015]. The long-term goal of the Paris Agreement was to keep global temperature increases from exceeding 1.5°C. Individual countries have submitted their commitments and plans to reduce emissions as part of implementing the Paris Agreement. The EU has committed to reducing GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990) and becoming the world’s first climate-neutral economy by 2050 [UE Council 2023a]. The implementation of these intentions will be made possible by the “Fit for 55” package, which is a set of legislative proposals intended to amend and update EU rules and establish new initiatives so that EU policy can make the transition in an equitable manner, maintaining and increasing the innovation and competitiveness of the EU industry while strengthening its position as a leader in the fight against climate change [UE Council 2023b]. The regulations adopted in April 2023 by the EU Council regarding the implementation of the “Ready for 55” package include, among others, activities in the field of the EU emission allowance trading system, the introduction of a carbon border tax, and the creation of a Social Climate Fund [EU Council 2023c]. With regard to sectors not covered by the EU emission trading system (including agriculture), it was decided that 2030 reduction targets would be increased to 40%, compared to the 29% agreed upon in 2005.

Agriculture impacts the environment in many ways, including GHG emissions [EEA 2019]. According to the FAO, global GHG emissions from agriculture amounted to approximately 9.3 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent in 2018 (with about 5.3 billion tons related to direct activities at the farm gate level and 4 billion tons related to land use and land use change). They accounted for approximately 17% of global GHG emissions from all sectors [FAO 2020]. The contribution of agriculture to global GDP is around 4% [FAO 2021], which means that in relative terms, it is a sector that particularly burdens the climate. Direct agricultural activities at the farm level are mainly associated with methane and nitrogen oxides (non-CO₂ emissions), which have a greenhouse-effect potential many times greater than carbon dioxide. The impact of “land use and land use change” consists primarily of CO₂ emissions [OECD 2022]. In non-CO₂ emissions, the primary agricultural source of the problem is enteric fermentation in ruminants, which is responsible for almost 40% of total farm emissions of non-CO₂ greenhouse gases [Figure 1]. The second most significant source of emissions from this sector is manure (20%), and the third largest is synthetic fertilisers (13%). The remaining sources account for less than one-third of non-CO₂ GHG emissions.

Figure 1.

Despite its significant role in global GHG emissions, agriculture thus far lags behind other economic sectors in terms of taking action to reduce emissions [OECD 2022a]. The diverse nature and connection of agriculture with various social and environmental aspects make the implementation of policies using lessons from other sectors a significant challenge. However, despite the existing barriers, this sector has great potential to reduce GHG emissions originating not only from agricultural production but also from other sectors, such as bioenergy production [IPCC 2018; Roe et al. 2021].

By mid-2022, however, only 16 OECD countries and key developing economies had established targets for reducing emissions from the agricultural sector [OECD 2022b]. The role of agriculture is disregarded during activities such as setting CO₂ emission prices or other regulatory measures. Still, at the same time, only a tiny part of the agricultural sector’s support is used to reduce its emissions [OECD 2022a]. Agriculture is currently the only sector in the EU that is not subject to the “polluter pays” principle. Concerns have been raised, and the European Court of Auditors and OECD prompted the European Commission to initiate public consultations on climate goals and EU policy after 2030, including the possibility of introducing an emissions trading system for agriculture [Concito 2023]. However, there is no doubt that without taking appropriate action, further significant reduction will be impossible [OECD 2022b]. Analysis by the European Environment Agency [EEA 2021] indicates that with the current policy and tools, the projected decrease in GHG emissions from the EU agricultural sector is only 1.5% from 2020 to 2040. Given the EU’s ambitious climate neutrality plans, agriculture must also be subject to greater regulation. One of the options is the introduction of a system similar to the emissions trading system. Another form of taxation intended to stimulate the dissemination of low-emission solutions could also be implemented [Concito 2023].

When discussing the level of GHG emissions from agriculture, it should be borne in mind that the value of this indicator may vary to some extent depending on the source of the data and how it is aggregated. According to the IPCC classification, agriculture-related emissions fall into the category of AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use). Under this classification, the land use categories include forest land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements and other lands (e.g., bare soil, rock, ice, etc) [Iversen et al. 2014]. In total, the balance of GHG emissions and removals in these categories make up a component labelled LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry). For each of these six categories, emissions and removals are estimated, considering living biomass, dead organic matter, and organic carbon in soil. LULUCF, therefore, covers CO₂ emissions related to land use, which are associated with both agricultural activities and other processes for which agriculture is not at least directly responsible.

The second component of the AFOLU category is emissions associated with on-farm farming practices, including burning of crop residues, fertiliser application, rice cultivation, and livestock-related emissions (enteric fermentation and manure management), which produce mainly methane and nitrous oxide [Iversen et al. 2014]. It is worth noting that while both emissions and removals are possible in LULUCF, only emissions are considered in the “Agriculture” category. It is also worth noting that the IPCC, when estimating emissions related to the agricultural sector, does not consider the combustion of fuels in the production processes of this sector; instead, it includes them in the emissions of the “Energy” sector. The FAO presents it differently, assigning these emissions to the agriculture sector (“Farm gate”). Another difference in classification regards emissions associated with drained organic soils. The FAO also estimates emissions for the entire food production system, which are sometimes mistakenly equated with emissions from the agricultural sector; the IPCC, meanwhile, categorises these under other sectors of the economy. The existing differences between the classifications can be a source of misunderstanding. The classifications of the main categories of food-related emissions according to the IPCC and FAO are shown in Figure 2. The subsequent parts of this study were based on emissions included in the “Agriculture” category according to the IPCC classification.

Figure 2.

Globally, emissions from the agricultural sector (according to the IPCC classification, excluding LULUCF) totalled just over 6 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent in 2020. India is the largest emitter in this sector, accounting for almost 13% (0.77 billion tons) of total emissions from the agricultural pool [Map 1]. China is responsible for about 11% (0.66 billion tons) of agricultural emissions, followed by Brazil (9%, 0.54 billion tons) and the US (6.4%, 0.39 billion tonnes). The EU-27 also collectively emit a similar amount of GHG to the US (0.4 billion; 6.6%). India, China, Brazil and the US generate almost 40% of global emissions from the agricultural sector. If the whole EU-27 is added, the proportion increases to 45%. The largest emitters from the agricultural sector in the EU are France (18.3% of agricultural emissions in the EU), Germany (14.8%), Spain (10.9%), Italy (8.7%), and Poland (8.3%). Together, these five countries account for more than 60% of the emissions from the EU’s agricultural sector [Figure 3].

Map 1.

Figure 3.

From the point of view of striving for climate neutrality, an important issue in considering the importance of agriculture in global GHG emissions is its current contribution to GHG emissions and changes occurring over time. Available statistics indicate that, on average, GHG emissions from agriculture have been constantly increasing globally [Figure 4]. Between 1990 and 2020, this increase can be estimated to be around 17%

It should be emphasized, however, that such an indicator is obtained using the IPCC methodology and excludes LULUCF—otherwise, a downward trend may be demonstrated. This can be observed in FAO publications where the total emissions from the “Farm gate” and “land change” categories in 2018 are each about 4% lower than in 2000 [2021]. The decrease in agricultural emissions indicated by FAO was the result of reduced deforestation, but global emissions at the “farm gate” level were systematically increasing in the mentioned period [FAO 2021]. Assessment of changes in emission levels requires taking into account the methodology of their prior estimation.

Figure 4.

On the other hand, the situation is different in Africa, where, on average, GHG emissions from agriculture increased by more than 70% during the period mentioned above, and in South America and Asia, which had an increase of about 35% between 1990 and 2020. Some increase in emissions, albeit on a slightly smaller scale, can also be observed in the case of North America (over 8%).

The distribution of GHG emissions between regions appears slightly different when using a relative approach and comparing the per-capita GHG emissions of each country [Map 2]. In this comparison, the countries that are the absolute largest emitters of GHG from agriculture, such as China and India, are characterised by a very low value of this indicator due to their large population. Meanwhile, most South American countries are characterised by relatively high GHG emissions per capita, particularly Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, and Bolivia. Some African countries also show this pattern, such as Chad, Namibia, and the Central African Republic, as well as Australia and New Zealand, and in Asia, Mongolia.

Map 2.

Among European countries, Ireland stands out with its high per-capita GHG emissions. It is a significant producer of agricultural products in the EU and, simultaneously, a country with a relatively low population density. When considering per-capita emissions levels, it is also worth paying attention to the direction of the changes in this indicator [Figure 5]. While absolute emissions show significant differences between individual regions, when comparing emissions to the number of people, it can be observed that, on average, there has been a decline in this parameter since the beginning of the 1990s in all regions of the world. In the case of developing countries, this phenomenon is undoubtedly due to population growth and their increased absolute level of emissions. In contrast, in developed countries, this trend can be associated mainly with a decrease in absolute emissions, combined with relatively small changes in the population.

Figure 5.

Total emissions at the country level (both in absolute terms and per capita) are related to the size of the agricultural sector and do not indicate the unit emission intensity of production, which may be the basis for assessing environmental performance. Comparison of relative measures, such as GHG emissions per 1 ha of agricultural land or another chosen unit of production (e.g., quantity or value of manufactured products), allows for a more complete assessment of production processes and the identification of regions that use environmental resources more or less effectively.

Differences in GHG emission levels on a global scale per area unit are presented graphically on Map 3. It can be observed in this comparison that the most significant burdens are primarily experienced by some Asian countries, with some European countries also part of the mix. This group includes, among others, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand and Japan. European countries include the Netherlands, Norway, Ireland and, to a lesser extent, Germany. This high-emissions-per-unit-area group also includes some African countries, in particular Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Ethiopia. Much of South America, particularly Brazil, is also characterised by relatively high GHG emissions per 1 ha. The level of GHG emissions per 1 ha is usually compared with the intensity of animal production (the greater the number of animals, especially ruminants, the higher the emissions per unit area).

Map 3.

Analysis of Map 3 indicates that the regions of the world with the lowest emissions per 1 ha of agricultural land are primarily countries with a large total agricultural land area: Russia, Australia, the USA, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and some African countries. Using the criterion of emissions per unit area, however, China is characterised by relatively low emissions (especially compared to India and European countries).

When comparing emissions per 1 ha, although, in simple terms, it may constitute a simple illustration of the distribution of GHG emission burdens in spatial terms, it does not refer to the efficiency of the production processes. From the point of view of the primary goal of agricultural activity—food production—and considering the challenges resulting from the growing global population, it seems justified to compare the level of emissions with the production results achieved. Map 4 shows the average level of GHG emissions for individual countries based on their agricultural production value (kg CO₂ eq/1 USD). From this perspective, the highest-emitting countries include quite a large group of African countries (Chad, Niger, Ethiopia, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Angola), some Asian countries (Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan), but also Australia and, to a lesser extent, South American countries. The high value of this indicator in many developing countries results not so much from the absolute level of emissions but from the absolute low value of their production output, which in turn results from the low level of agricultural development. From the perspective of this analysis method, agriculture in most European countries, as well as China and India, turns out to be relatively low-emission.

Map 4.

Comparing emissions measured per unit of area with emissions per unit of production is important from the point of view of the so-called “sustainable intensification of agriculture,” in particular for the question of whether it is better to produce intensively (which leads to a lower emission burden for each unit of production obtained, but a higher emission burden for each unit of area) or less intensively (which will usually result in higher emissions per unit of production, but smaller emissions per 1 ha). Disparities between the level of GHG emissions per 1 ha and the level per unit of production can be observed in European countries, among others. Compared to the rest of the world, most European countries are characterised by a relatively high level of emissions per 1 ha and a relatively low level in terms of production value—a consequence of Europe’s higher intensity and efficiency of production. This is the opposite situation of many African countries, for example.

It is worth bearing in mind that there are also considerable differences between European countries regarding the discussed indicators. However, the scope of differences is clearly smaller than when comparing countries on the scale of the whole world [Maps 5a and 5b]. As mentioned earlier, the highest GHG emissions per 1 ha were observed in the Netherlands and Belgium and, to a lesser extent, in Norway and Ireland. When relating the level of emissions to the value of production, the countries with the highest emission index were the Baltic states, Ireland, and, to a lesser extent, Great Britain, Sweden, and Finland.

Map 5a and 5b.

The observed differences between individual countries in their GHG emission levels suggest that including agriculture in a system aimed at reducing emissions (e.g., one similar to the ETS) may have different effects depending on the method of determining the adopted emission intensity. As emphasised earlier, efforts to achieve reduction goals have not yet formally covered agriculture. Still, work is being carried out in the EU to assess possible solutions in this area [CAKE/KOBIZE 2023].

Within the framework of climate policy, two basic mechanisms can be identified that can be used to reduce GHG emissions: quantitative restrictions (not directly related to incurring an additional cost of emissions) and mechanisms that directly burden issuers with an additional cost (e.g., through additional taxation, as in the case of the ETS) [CAKE/KOBIZE 2023]. Analysis conducted by CAKE/KOBiZE [2023] assuming various scenarios for the development of climate policy indicates that the inclusion of agriculture in the ETS (the “One ETS” scenario) would result in a significantly more significant decline in emissions from the EU’s agricultural sector (including Poland) than in the projections resulting from “Fit for 55” package (Fit55 scenario) [Figure 6a and 6b]. In total, in the EU, the reduction effect from the 2050 perspective would, in such a case, be almost 60 million tonnes of CO₂ eq higher than if the measures presented in the “Fit for 55” package were limited (in relative terms, if GHG emissions from the agricultural sector were reduced by 58% instead of approximately 45% compared to 2014). In the case of Poland, the scenario assuming the inclusion of agriculture in the emissions trading system would create a projected reduction of agricultural emissions of almost 60% between 2014 and 2050 (from 37.9 million tonnes to 15.4 million tonnes of CO₂ eq) while using the “Fit for 55” tools would result in a drop of 43% (to 21.6 million tons).

Figures 6a and 6b.

The decrease in GHG emissions shown in Figure 6 is associated with a significant reduction in agricultural production, which would generate both price increases and changes in international trade. According to the calculations mentioned by CAKE/KOBiZE [2023], for the entire EU, production volume would have to decrease by over 20% in the Fit55 scenario and over 60% in the “OneETS” scenario. In the case of Poland, the decline in agricultural production in the Fit55 scenario would be slightly smaller than the EU average (less than 20%). In contrast, in the OneETS scenario, it would be somewhat more than the EU average (about 70%). Despite relatively small differences in production volume change, simulations conducted by CAKE/KOBiZE clearly show a higher projected increase in prices of agricultural products in Poland compared to those in other EU countries. This is the result of a lower base price; in the OneETS scenario, the prices of agricultural products in Poland would (according to the analyses) be over 250% of the prices from 2014, while on average in the EU, it would be over just over 200% [Figures 7a and 7b].

Figures 7a and 7b.

Analysis conducted by CAKE/KOBiZE [2023] also shows that increased imports would have to compensate for a decline in agricultural production in the EU resulting from implementing climate policy assumptions [Figures 8a and 8b]. These changes would result in a significantly increased volume of the agricultural output outside of the EU. In the scenario consistent with the “Fit for 55” (Fit55) assumptions, imports would see an increase of approximately 38% compared to 2015, while in the “One ETS” scenario, they would increase by almost 42% [Figure 9].

Figures 8a and 8b.

Figure 9.

Analysis of available statistical data indicates that, on an average global scale, GHG emissions from the agricultural sector are constantly increasing, stimulated by the growing demand for food from a growing global population. At the same time, in the EU and elsewhere, agriculture is not subject to such intensive emission reduction activities as in other sectors of the economy. However, it should be assumed that implementing the goals related to the pursuit of climate neutrality will also have an increasing impact on the agricultural sector, although it is currently difficult to say what climate policy model will be implemented in this case. The situation is complicated because between different regions of the World, and even between different EU countries, there are pretty significant differences, both in terms of emission levels and in how they have trended. Though overall GHG emissions from the agricultural sector continue to show an increasing trend, in some parts of the world there has been a significant decline in this parameter. This applies primarily to Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. On the other hand, a dynamic increase in GHG emissions from agriculture can be observed in developing countries, resulting from population growth and the related increase in agricultural production. It is worth noting, however, that despite the rise in the absolute level of GHG emissions from agriculture, the amount per capita is gradually decreasing in all regions of the World. This suggests that the environmental efficiency of agricultural production is improving, which may be related to technological progress and better use of available resources.

From the climate policy perspective, an essential indicator of the emission intensity of agriculture is comparing the relation of generated environmental burdens to production potential (measured by area) and to achieved production effects (value or volume of production). A comparison of GHG emissions per 1 ha indicates that countries with high land factor productivity, where it is possible to implement a sustainable intensification strategy, should be characterised as particularly emissive. These countries are also usually characterised by lower emissions per unit of production. If the climate policy variant were implemented assuming GHG emissions per 1 ha as the basis for assessing the emission intensity of agriculture, there would be pressure in these countries to externalise production (by increasing imports), which in territorial terms could lead to “transferring” emissions to other countries (usually less-developed ones). A mechanism based on the assessment of emissions per 1 ha would probably lead to a more significant decrease in agriculture in highly developed countries. However, if emissions were instead assessed using an indicator based on the ratio of GHG emissions to the production achieved, the resulting policy would put countries with a lower level of development characterised by lower land factor productivity, particularly, at risk. Regardless of which one is chosen, the method of implementing climate policy in agricultural production will be of crucial importance for the future competitiveness of the farming sector in individual countries.