Land-based carbon removal is attractive because forests, grasslands, and soils can absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and store it in vegetation, roots, and organic matter. In many climate scenarios, expanding forests and restoring degraded ecosystems are used to compensate for emissions that are difficult to eliminate from aviation, heavy industry, agriculture, and other sectors. However, these strategies require large areas of land. When integrated assessment models allocate more territory to carbon uptake, cropland, pasture, and other human uses can be displaced or reduced.

The authors, led by Xiaoqian Chen and Shaokun Li, examined findings from recent integrated assessment studies and high-resolution land system models. These models combine information about energy systems, agricultural production, trade, land use, population, diets, and climate policy to estimate how societies might evolve under different warming pathways. Their analysis suggests that the land requirements associated with ambitious mitigation could lead to a 12.8% decline in global cropland by the end of the century compared with scenarios involving less aggressive land-based carbon removal.

The projected losses would not be distributed evenly. Countries in the Global South could experience an average cropland reduction of approximately 13.0%, placing additional pressure on regions that already face challenges involving poverty, infrastructure, climate exposure, and access to food markets. South America could see an especially sharp decline of about 23.7%. The region is a major agricultural producer and exporter, meaning that the consequences would not remain local. A reduction in cultivated land could affect both rural livelihoods and the international supply of soybeans, grains, meat, and other commodities.

Europe is projected to experience the largest absolute regional reduction, with approximately 440,000 square kilometers of cropland potentially lost. Although Europe has high agricultural productivity and strong trade networks, a decline of this scale could still alter production patterns and increase dependence on imports. Major exporters such as Brazil, the United States, and Argentina could also lose cropland under ambitious land-based mitigation pathways. This matters because global food security depends not only on how much food is produced, but also on where it is produced and how reliably it can move across borders.

A shrinking agricultural land base could amplify food price volatility through several interacting mechanisms. Reduced cropland may lower total production, while climate extremes such as heatwaves, droughts, floods, and storms create additional disruptions. If exporting countries experience simultaneous production losses, international markets may have fewer alternative suppliers. Import-dependent nations could then face rising prices, supply shortages, or sudden restrictions on exports. Poor households, which typically spend a larger share of their income on food, would be hit hardest by these shocks.

The analysis does not argue against climate action or ecological restoration. Instead, it warns that mitigation plans must account for trade-offs between carbon storage and food production. Restoring forests can deliver major benefits, including biodiversity protection, erosion control, water regulation, and long-term carbon storage. Yet poorly designed projects may compete directly with cropland or push farming into forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems. The authors therefore call for land-use strategies that protect high-value agricultural areas while directing restoration toward degraded or low-productivity land wherever possible.

Improving agricultural productivity could help reduce the pressure, but technological progress alone will not solve the problem. Higher yields may depend on irrigation, fertilizers, improved seeds, mechanization, and digital management systems, all of which can be costly or inaccessible to small farmers. Policies that raise productivity without protecting land rights and rural livelihoods could deepen inequality. The researchers also emphasize the importance of reducing unnecessary trade barriers, strengthening emergency food reserves, and developing price-stabilization mechanisms that can protect vulnerable populations during international disruptions.

The authors argue that governments should also accelerate direct reductions in fossil-fuel emissions rather than relying excessively on forests and other land systems to compensate for continued pollution. Rapid decarbonization of electricity, transport, buildings, and industry would reduce the amount of carbon that must be removed from the atmosphere through land-based approaches. They call for more detailed land system models capable of representing national policies, dietary change, extreme weather, local communities, and differences in farming systems. The central message is clear: climate targets and food security should not be treated as competing priorities. A successful 1.5 °C strategy must protect the land that stores carbon without sacrificing the land that feeds the world.

Subject of Research: Climate policy, land use, cropland, carbon removal, and global food security

Article Title: Ambitious climate pledges threaten global cropland: a 12.8% reduction projected by 2100 under a 1.5 °C pathway

News Publication Date: 21-Jul-2026

Web References: https://doi.org/10.48130/ebp-0026-0010; https://www.maxapress.com/ebp

References: Chen X, Li S, Tu B, Wang L, He W, et al. 2026. “Ambitious climate pledges threaten global cropland: a 12.8% reduction projected by 2100 under a 1.5 °C pathway.” Environmental and Biogeochemical Processes 2: e015. DOI: 10.48130/ebp-0026-0010

Image Credits: Xiaoqian Chen, Shaokun Li, Bin Tu, Lei Wang, Wenxi He & Hong Yang

Keywords

Climate change, 1.5 °C pathway, cropland loss, food security, carbon dioxide removal, afforestation, reforestation, land-use change, agricultural productivity, climate policy, global food systems, environmental science

The researchers articulate that the current food system is resource-intensive, often leading to environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, the vision proposed by O’Keeffe and colleagues underscores the potential of regenerative practices that not only diminish harm but actively improve the ecosystem. Through innovative agricultural techniques that prioritize soil health, biodiversity, and water conservation, the regenerative approach offers a pathway to restoring ecological balance while meeting the food needs of a growing global population.

At the heart of this vision lies the concept of inclusivity, which seeks to empower marginalized communities that often bear the brunt of food system failures. The article outlines how restorative practices can be harmonized with social equity initiatives. Farmer cooperatives, community-supported agriculture, and localized food systems can create economic opportunities in underserved areas, thereby generating not just food but also wealth and stability. The authors argue that pursuing an inclusive agriculture model is not merely a matter of ethics but is crucial for creating a resilient food system.

Furthermore, the article addresses the pivotal role of policymakers in facilitating such a transformation. The authors advocate for investment in research and development of regenerative practices, alongside incentives for farmers transitioning to these methods. This requires a concerted effort across multiple sectors—government, private, and non-governmental organizations—to foster environments where innovation can thrive. The identification and dismantling of the regulatory barriers that hinder regenerative agriculture will be essential to harness the full potential of this paradigm shift.

Education and public awareness also feature prominently within the proposed framework. By disseminating knowledge about regenerative practices, the goal is to cultivate a culture of sustainability that spans from farmers to consumers. Schools and community organizations can play a central role in this educational push, promoting understanding about the benefits of regenerative agriculture and encouraging informed food choices amongst citizens.

Crucially, the research lays out a comprehensive vision that links ecological health with public health. Nutritional outcomes are often correlated with the environmental repercussions of food production methods. As such, regenerative practices are not only intended to mitigate climate change but also to address nutritional deficiencies and improve the overall health of populations. By shifting to food systems that prioritize quality over quantity, the authors suggest that communities can combat diet-related health issues while preserving natural resources.

Community engagement is highlighted as a cornerstone of the RIFS framework. Involving local voices in the decision-making process on food systems ensures that diverse perspectives and needs are considered. Engaging communities in understanding their local ecosystems and how best to utilize them sustainably fosters stewardship that can lead to lasting change. This participatory approach can challenge the status quo of top-down policies that often overlook the unique circumstances of diverse populations.

The risks and vulnerabilities associated with the current food system are exacerbated by climate change; droughts, floods, and shifting weather patterns have made traditional farming practices increasingly untenable. The regenerative food systems model provides adaptive strategies that enhance resilience to these climate-related shocks. Through diversified crop rotations, agroecological practices, and permaculture, farmers can build systems that withstand environmental uncertainties.

Furthermore, the financial implications of adopting regenerative practices are addressed in the article. Although transitioning to regenerative agriculture may require initial investments, the long-term benefits in terms of sustainability, productivity, and climate resilience could outweigh these costs. The authors highlight examples of farmers who have successfully made this transition, noting increased yields, reduced input costs, and improved soil and water quality as key outcomes.

The integration of technology into regenerative agricultural practices presents another area ripe for innovation. Emerging technologies such as precision agriculture, drone monitoring for soil health, and biotechnology can enhance the effectiveness of regenerative practices. The combination of traditional ecological knowledge with modern technology can lead to improved efficiencies and accountability in food production.

As consumer awareness grows around issues such as climate change and health, the demand for sustainably produced food continues to rise. The authors emphasize that regenerative food systems are not just a trend, but a necessary evolution in our relationship with food. The proposed framework aligns with increasing consumer preferences for ethical and environmentally friendly products, creating a viable market for regenerative foods.

Investment in infrastructure is essential for the success of RIFS. The authors explore the need for improved transportation and logistics systems that facilitate the distribution of regenerative products. Access to urban markets, for example, can be enhanced through the establishment of local food hubs that connect farmers directly to consumers. This not only reduces the carbon footprint associated with food transportation but also supports local economies.

Lastly, the article underscores the importance of monitoring and evaluating the impacts of transitioning to regenerative food systems. Metrics and benchmarks will be crucial for assessing progress and ensuring accountability. Robust data collection mechanisms can provide insights into how RIFS are performing in real-time and where additional support may be needed.

In conclusion, the research put forth by O’Keeffe and her colleagues presents a compelling case for reimagining our food systems. Through an integrated approach that embraces regenerative practices and prioritizes inclusivity, the potential for creating a sustainable and resilient food future is within reach. This framework lays the groundwork for a transformative shift toward food systems that honor our environmental and social responsibilities, ensuring that generations to come can thrive in harmony with the planet.

Subject of Research: Regenerative, Inclusive Food Systems

Article Title: Regenerating the food system: A proposed vision and guiding principles for regenerative, inclusive food systems (RIFS)

Article References:

O’Keeffe, S., Amede, T.T., Bockline, B.O. et al. Regenerating the food system: A proposed vision and guiding principles for regenerative, inclusive food systems (RIFS).
Ambio (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02319-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 29 December 2025

Keywords: Regenerative Agriculture, Inclusive Food Systems, Sustainability, Climate Change Resilience, Community Engagement, Nutritional Health.