This boost is known in the industry as Total Factor Productivity (TFP). This finding suggests that for business leaders and policymakers, the best way to hit climate targets is to invest in smarter farming techniques that produce more with less.
Led by researchers from Cornell University and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), the study’s analysis showed that between 1961 and 2021, global agricultural output jumped by 270%.
Meanwhile, emissions from crops, livestock, and fertilisers grew by only 45%. While total emissions are still rising, the amount of pollution produced for every dollar of food has dropped significantly. This shift marks a major victory for efficiency in the global supply chain and provides a roadmap for future sustainable growth.
The three channels of emission growth
To understand how agriculture can grow while limiting pollution, the researchers used a mathematical identity to break emission growth into three parts. They looked at growth in three areas: total output, emissions per unit of input, and productivity. TFP is a common economic metric that tracks how much a sector produces compared to all the resources it uses, such as land, labour and machinery. It measures how ‘smart’ a sector is getting over time.
The study showed that for emissions to fall, the rise in productivity or the decline in input “dirtiness” had to happen faster than the growth of total food production. Over the last 60 years, productivity has been the heavy lifter in this equation, consistently reducing the carbon footprint of global farming by allowing farmers to do more with less.
Why the productivity gap is a climate gap
The data revealed that the role of productivity was not the same everywhere. High-income countries have seen their agricultural emissions stay flat or even fall, because their productivity gains have balanced out their output growth. In these regions, productivity growth has nearly offset the annual growth in output.
This has led to stagnant emission levels even as these nations produce more food than ever before. It proves that a mature economy can continue to feed people without necessarily increasing its environmental footprint.
In contrast, low-income nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, face a different reality. These regions have experienced the slowest productivity growth, meaning their emissions are rising much faster as they expand farming to meet the needs of growing populations.
Between 1961 and 2021, emissions in low-income countries grew at an average rate of 2.2% per year. This suggests the ‘productivity gap’ between wealthy and developing nations is also a major driver of global climate change. Closing this gap through shared technology and investment is a key priority for the international business community.
Land efficiency offers a cleaner path than machines
The study makes a vital distinction between land productivity and labour productivity. These two types of efficiency have very different effects on the environment. Technological changes that boost land productivity, such as better seeds, improved irrigation, and precision fertiliser use, are closely linked with decarbonisation.
When a farmer produces more grain on the same acre, they spare other land from being ploughed under. This keeps more carbon in the soil and trees, which positively impacts the environment.
However, labour productivity tells a different story. In many high-income countries, it has skyrocketed due to mechanisation. While one worker can now manage a much larger farm, they often use energy-intensive machinery to do so.
The study noted that labour productivity often rose alongside increases in labour emission intensity. This means that while mechanisation makes farming more profitable, it does not always reduce the biophysical processes that generate methane or nitrous oxide. Focusing on ‘land-saving’ innovations appears to be the most promising way forward for climate goals.
Investing in the technological frontier
Cornell University stated in an accompanying press release that investing in research and development (R&D) is the most cost-effective way to lower emissions. Rather than just paying farmers to adopt a few best practices, the researchers suggested a focus on shifting the “technological frontier”.
This means creating entirely new ways of farming that are inherently more efficient. Estimates show that research investments are a more effective pathway than many traditional rules or policies. The study’s authors also observed that technological changes that boosted land productivity were more closely linked with reductions in emission intensity, compared to changes that boosted labour productivity.
This insight suggested that innovations like vertical farming, gene editing for higher yields, and precision agriculture would offer the best return for companies aiming for net-zero goals. These technologies address the root cause of emissions by maximising the output of every resource used on the farm.
Strategic takeaways for agribusiness
Looking ahead, the researchers called for more rigorous cost-benefit analyses of alternative policy options. While global dietary shifts are a useful long-term goal, the most immediate impact will come from productivity gains in the regions that need them most.
The evolution of the agricultural sector over the last 60 years proves higher food production volume can happen with a smaller relative footprint. The challenge for the next 60 years will be to turn that relative reduction into an absolute drop in total GHG emissions.
Agribusinesses that focus on ‘climate-smart’ productivity will likely be the ones to thrive in an increasingly regulated global market. By prioritising technologies that boost yield while minimising land expansion, the sector can meet the needs of a growing population without exceeding planetary boundaries. The key is to remember that productivity is not just about profit, but is a fundamental pillar of environmental sustainability and a necessary tool for a cooler planet.
Source: Science Advances
“Unpacking the growth of global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions”
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aeb8653
Authors: Ariel Ortiz-Bobea, et al.
