Sustainable agriculture
Systems and practices for
agricultural transition
DISCUSSION BRIEF

27 September 2022

Defining sustainable agriculture
1. Introduction
Agriculture is a dynamic and complex system, composed of countless particular characteristics thatdefy standardization and common definitions. For instance, hundreds of cultivated crops and a widearray of systems and practices are employed in different geographical locations with diverse social,environmental and economic landscapes. This scenario requires that any intervention made in the
sector should be context-specific.
Agriculture accounts for an estimated 34% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions worldwide (Crippa etal., 2021). In 2019, emissions within the farm gate (crop and livestock production, including on-farmenergy use) accounted for 7.2 Gt CO2 eq. yr−1, while emissions from land-use change accounted for
3.5 Gt CO2 eq. yr−1. In brief, 65% of all emissions within the agri-food sector are related to primary
food production (Tubiello et al., 2022). In addition to the high carbon footprint, traditional agricultural
practices are drivers of biodiversity loss and water/soil degradation (Benton et al., 2021; Hunke et al.,2014). At the same time, agriculture is one of the sector most vulnerable to the impacts of climatechange (Tao et al., 2011). Recent extreme events have demonstrated how food production systems
can be affected by shifting global climate; heat waves in southern Asia have destroying wheat crops
and severe drought in southern Brazil has severely damaged the soybean crop.
To reduce the impact of food production on the environment, the sector must shift to a moresustainable footing. Generally, ‘sustainable’ activities are usually understood as those that are capableof meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs (Brundtland report; 1987). However, a standard narrative on what constitutes
sustainable agriculture is yet to emerge due to the complexity of the sector. Production systems areoften referred to as "sustainable", but the absence of agreed definitions mean that the risk ofincremental changes to business-as-usual and of greenwashing is substantial.
Moreover, there is an ever-increasing demand that the sustainable performance of agricultural
systems should go beyond environmental impact and incorporate social standards, such as
widespread access to nutritious diets, steady incomes, stable land rights and prioritization ofunderserved groups. The process of combining environmental guidelines and social standards is anenormous challenge for the definition of sustainable agriculture. Social issues have a horizontal
behaviour across the supply chain, and should not only be addressed within the production unit, butalso considering and analysing the impacts on upstream and downstream sub-sectors.
Climate Bonds aims to provide clarity to capital markets and institutional investors on the component
factors of sustainable agriculture to enable rapid and positive change in investment practices.
Considering this challenge, we propose to break down the various named systems (regenerative
agriculture, natural agriculture, etc.) into potential sustainable management practices, which are to
be defined by common characteristics, regardless of the system(s) they may be a part of.

2. Production Systems Linked to Sustainable Agriculture
A large number of systems is reported in literature, but we consider four of the most representative
examples that align with the broad concept of sustainable agriculture, although it should be noted thatthe sustainability of any system is dependent on the actual implementation.
1. Regenerative agriculture, a well-established concept that has recently gained a lot of ground.
Robert Rodale coined the term in the late 1980s. It consists of a system that aims to restore
soil health, reducing but not eliminating synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ensuring that2
Agri-food Systems Transition - Climate Bonds Initiative

agricultural practices positively affect the environment (FOLU, 2019). Regenerative agriculture
practices are ultimately linked to shifting the agricultural operations from a source to a sinkfor carbon, inverting the GHG emissions dynamics correlated to conventional practices (Oberč& Arroyo Schnell, 2020). Despite the broad definition of the regenerative system, the lack of a
global consensus on a scope of practices and the exclusive nature of some alternative
definitions creates numerous challenges for researchers, producers, regulators, andconsumers (Newton et al., 2020).
2. Ecological intensification of agricultural activities is a broad concept that may be applied indifferent regions, contexts, and crops. Countless names have been used to define similar
and/or aligned sets of practices and principles, such as diverse or agroecological systems. In
summary, ecological intensification aims to improve or maintain agricultural yields achievedby conventional practices, but meeting good standards of environmental quality. This goal isattained by optimizing biological processes and using their benefits to overcome challenges
such as pests, diseases, and low soil fertility (Oberč & Arroyo Schnell, 2020). In other words, theaim is to embed resilience into the agricultural operation to sustain yields in the face ofadversities, based on the postulation that biodiversity and ecosystem services can be used asa replacement for external and artificial inputs (Kleijn et al., 2019). Nevertheless, as discussed
for regenerative agriculture, the ecological intensification system faces similar issues related
to the lack of a common definition and standard practices, making its widespread adoption a
resting challenge.
3. Sustainable intensification. This system is linked to the promotion of ever-increasing yields
without triggering any adverse environmental impact and eliminating the need to convert
additional non-agricultural land. The sustainable intensification concept openly does nothighlight or privilege a standard set of practices. Still, it emphasizes the objective of using wellstrategized and innovative techniques to enhance the overall efficiency of an agriculturaloperation (Pretty & Bharucha, 2014). Under this "end rather than means" oriented approach,sustainable intensification systems may take numerous forms depending on where and when
it is being employed, making any kind of classification barely impossible, as it may show close
similarities with many other described systems, especially with those mentioned above in thisdocument, further falling under the same challenges. However, the use of outcomes as a
metric for standardization may be beneficial in the sense that just the endline of an operationis under evaluation, mitigating the complexity of describing all the processes required toachieve said outcome.
4. Organic agriculture/farming. This term might be the most widely-known regarding
sustainable agriculture. This is because the organic farming movement has successfully built astrong connection between producers and consumers, based on environmental and healthbenefits linked to the non-use of agrochemicals and other inputs. Even as the principles
underpinning the system may seem clear to some, especially consumers, they go deeper into
many aspects beyond banning synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, such as maintaining
biodiversity, clean energy sources, and animal welfare (Oberč & Arroyo Schnell, 2020).
Nevertheless, different practices may be required to achieve these principles depending on
where and when the system is being applied, prompting standardization issues as mentioned
above. These issues are, in some cases, addressed by regional regulations and standards on
produce originating from organic farming operations, much of it answering consumer demand.
The most up-to-date data shows that 72 countries have fully implemented national organic
agriculture regulations, and 36 have drafted or approved but not fully implemented such rules(FiBL & IFOAM, 2021).
As previously mentioned, the absence of any system in this relatively short list of descriptions is not
an attempt to prioritize one concept over another. At this point, it is clear that the list of known systems
and variations within systems is extensive and far beyond the capacity of any common standard toclassify and regulate. Nonetheless, we must have a proxy guiding the sector towards sustainable3
Agri-food Systems Transition - Climate Bonds Initiative

approaches. Therefore, we attempt to do so in the next section by identifying the management
practices more often related to sustainable agriculture, some of which may very well fit into one ormore of the systems previously presented.

3. Management Practices Linked to Sustainable Agriculture
This section aims to summarise the practices more often related to sustainable agricultural operations.
It is essential to make clear that the sustainable potential of these practices depends on how andwhere they are employed. Therefore, regional context must be considered when discussing further
standardization, enhancing the complexity of the task. For this reason, all this information is lattersummarized in Table 1, and for further discussion, practices are broken down in three groups: Always
Sustainable, Usually Sustainable (with some caveats) and Sometimes Sustainable (under someconditions) according to their context specific environmental impact. Once again, no preference wasgiven in this selection, and the practices discussed below are up for constant revision and update.
Soil management practices aim to increase soil health and, thus, its capacity to support crops. In this
topic, the first set of practices to address is no/minimum tillage and direct seed. The act of not tilling(not incorporating residues) increases the production and retention of organic matter by the soil,
enhancing biological activity and soil fertility, reducing soil erosion, improving water quality andsequestering more carbon (Buffet, 2012). However, no-till practices can be linked to an elevated weedpressure, which should be addressed by means other than increasing the use of herbicides.
Additionally, in temperate weather regions, the soil temperature must be closely tracked to ensure
these conditions meet crop requirements. No/min-till practices should be accompanied by crop
management strategies, such as crop rotation, agroforestry, crop-livestock integration,intercropping, polycultures, cover crops, and mulching, aiming to increase the production anddistribution of diverse biomass, which is further converted into organic matter. By increasing thecontent of organic matter, the soil becomes a carbon storage facility, not only reducing emissions by
its enhanced capacity of supporting crops without substantial external inputs, but also sequestrating
carbon that otherwise would be dispersed in the atmosphere. Finally, crop management must beconceived and applied in coordination with integrated nutrient management, which includes
compost, organic manure, nitrogen-fixing crops, fertigation, and bio-fertilizers (PGPB and N-fixing
microorganisms).
Continuing our run across sustainable practices, the centre of attention will now be on how to deal(sustainably) with one of the most prominent threats to agriculture production through a joint strategy
defined as an integrated pest, diseases, and weed management. One of the backbones of thisapproach is the intensively discussed practice of biological control, which can potentially be applied
to managing all harmful organisms in an agricultural operation (pests, disease, and weeds). Biocontrol
is the act of combating said pestilential organisms using other living agents. However, recently, the useof nature-based substances (non-living, e.g., isolated metabolites) is to be considered under the sameumbrella, now renamed bioprotection (Stenberg et al., 2021). The benefits are numerous; toemphasize the reduction/extinction of agrochemicals as a management practice and the potential of
creating long-term resilient environments.
Many sustainable agriculture systems focus on enhancing production efficiency, meaning that bigger
yields are contemplated while using fewer resources. Some systems have in-scope practices related toprecision agriculture/farming to enforce this objective. Those practices aim at using the necessary
number of resources, and nothing more than that, to ensure the highest possible yield. This goal isachieved by applying technologies of near-real-time observations, which enables agricultural
management decisions to be tailored in time and space, always following the actual necessities of thesystem (Finger et al., 2019). Some practical examples of precision agriculture practices are predictivemodels of plant diseases and pests, precision planting/fertilizing technologies, irrigation control,
4Agri-food Systems Transition - Climate Bonds Initiativeremote crop-scouting, interpretative yield maps, and many other technologies being developed andtested by the numerous dedicated companies in the field.
Another set of practices that trigger discussions in the sector is the vast group of plant breeding
approaches, especially regarding genetically modified organisms or GMOs. Traditional plant breeding,
based on selecting and/or crossing genotypes to accumulate desired characteristics in one individual
plant, has been around for millennia and has acted on building the genetics of all cultivated crops
nowadays. These techniques have shown incredible potential in increasing plant production efficiency
and resilience by adding traits such as disease resistance, drought tolerance, and yield performance,thus enhancing the sustainable capacity of agricultural systems (Borlaug, 1983). However, the use ofgenetic engineering techniques for the same purpose has been criticized by some authors, and noconclusion was reached on the alignment or not to sustainable agricultural standards. The actual
landscape reflects many developments in the plant genetic transformation field, with new techniques(CRISPR) and potential new traits, which may be of good use for a more sustainable sector, eventhough some concerns still have to be addressed.
Finally, two sustainable practices have an important influence on the livestock production sector. The
first one is rotational grazing, which promotes the grazing of different paddocks at a time while theremainder of the pasture grows and recovers, resulting in higher biomass production and elevatedanimal conversion ratio (Undersander et al., 2002). In addition, some emphasis must be given tosilvopastoralism, which embodies the combination of forage grasses and forestry species, like trees
and shrubs, improving animal nutrition and generating benefits such as enhanced soil
fertility/productivity and higher sequestration of carbon (Murgueitio et al., 2011).
The list of practices highlighted above is a collection of activities that when properly applied may
translate into environmental benefits, such as the mitigation of GHGs emission, protection of
biodiversity and increased climate resilience. Nonetheless, it is essential to mention that the social
impacts related to the employment of these practices must be subject of an assessment prior tolabelling any of them as sustainable. For such label to be given, it is expected that said practice impose
no significant harm (do no significant harm - DNSH) to any social aspect of concern, and preferablyincrease the social performance of the agroecosystem into consideration. The DNSH and increase insocial performance must also be subject of evaluation across the supply chain, ensuring that no
additional issues will arise either upstream or downstream.

Unsustainable Practices:
Some practices may never be considered sustainable and should be permanently restricted. These
practices are primarily linked to uncontrolled deforestation, the conversion of other high-carbon
stocks such as peatlands and permanent pasture and endangerment of other ecosystems, particularly
the rampant clearing of protected areas for crops and pastures, use of illegal chemicals and unimpeded
application of potentially dangerous substances. The employment of these practices by any production
system, even those mentioned above, is a red flag to indicate the unconformity with any sustainable
standard. In addition, practices that inflict any type of significant social harm should receive the labelof unsustainable regardless of their eventual environmental benefits.

5Agri-food Systems Transition - Climate Bonds Initiative

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

siv

e-

fee
d
(ex
ten
ion

(In
ten
siv
eion

ck
Pro
du
ct
sto

Liv
e

ck
Pro
du
ct
sto

GM
Os

Liv
e

on
ati

n

gR
adi

Fix
atio

X

X

X

X

Ion
isin

X

Sometimes
Sustainable(under someconditions)Social DNSH
andimprovement(assessment
necessary)

Nit
rog
en

Ro
ta t
ion
al G
raz
ing
Ag
rof
ore
st r
y
Mi
nim
al c
hem
ica
Int
lU
egr
se
ate
dP
est
ma
Int
nag
egr
em
ate
en
dN
t
utr
ien
Po
tm
llin
ana
ato
gem
rP
rom
en
t
o ti
Pre
on
cis
ion
Ag
ricu
ltu
Cro
re
pR
T ec
ota
hn
tio
olo
n
gy
Fer
tig
ati
on

er
rtil
is
pas
tur
e

Silv
o

se
as
fe

re
u
Ma
nu

Co
mp

ost

(so
i

l co

al)

nd
it

ion

er )

Cro
p
ixe
d
/M

h(
bio
log
ic

Mu
lc

rop

pin
g

cro
ps

Int
erc

nn
ial
Per
e

X

gra
zi n
g)

lot
s)

ure
oly
cul
t
/P
pin
g

zo n
es
ffe
r
l bu
gic
a
Cro
ps

iolo
/B
A si
de

Co
ver

ill
Usually
Sustainable(with somecaveats

Set

/M
in T
Till
No
AlwaysSustainable

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Table 1. List of production practices and their alignment to sustainable agricultural production. This list is not based on preferences and reflects frequently debated concepts in the sector.
There are numerous additional sustainable practices not showcased in this section. Additionally, the classification of practices is subject to regional influences.

4. Conclusion
Agriculture is a dynamic and complex sector, making it challenging to reach any kind of standardization, especiallyregarding sustainability. One potential approach to overcome some of the issues related to standardization andconsensus in the sector is to focus on the study and description of practices, labelling the ones more often alignedwith a credible sustainable transition and giving preference to systems contemplating similar practices. However,there are many gaps in evaluating these practices, considering that their sustainable potential varies from place toplace and the assessment of their social impacts demands a horizontal approach. Therefore, it is essential to foster
the debate around this issue and further reach a guideline on identifying and measuring sustainability in the
agricultural sector. It is also indispensable to discuss the transition timeline in the sector, being attentive to how to
set phase-out dates to certain practices in conformity with regional and social aspects, such as the region's stage ofdevelopment and the operation's size.

References
1. Benton, T.G.; Bieg, C.; Harwatt, H.; Pudasaini, R.; Wellesley, L. (2021). Food system impacts biodiversity loss: three levers forfood system transformation in support of nature. Energy, Environment and Resources Programme, Chatham House. Available
at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/02/food-system-impacts-biodiversity-loss
2. Borlaug, N.E. (1983). Contributions of conventional plant breeding to food production. Science, 219, n.4585, 689-693. Available
at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.219.4585.689
3. Brundtland, G. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United
Nations
GeneralAssembly
document
A/42/427.
Availableat:https://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/home/media/publications/sustainable-development/brundtland-report.html
4. Buffet, H.G. (2012). Reaping the benefits
https://www.nature.com/articles/484455a

ofno-tillage

farming.

Nature,

484,

455.

Availableat:

5. Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N. and Leip, A. (2021) Food systems are responsible fora third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2, 198–209. Available at: https://ecbpi.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Nature-food-systems-GHG-emissions-march-2021.pdf
6. FiBL & IFOAM (2021). The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends 2021. Available at:https://www.fao.org/familyfarming/detail/en/c/1378841/#:~:text=Statistics%20and%20Emerging%20Trends,106%20billion%20euros%20in%202019.
7. Finger, R.; Swinton, S.M.; Benni, N.E.; Walter, A. (2019). Precision farming is at the nexus of agricultural production and theenvironment.
AnnualReviewofResource
Economics,
11,313-335.
Availableat:https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093929#_i2
8. Hunke, P.; Mueller, E.N.; Schröder, B.; Zeilhofer, P. (2015). The Brazilian Cerrado assesses water and soil degradation incatchments under intensive agricultural use.
Ecohydrology, 8, n. 6, 1154-1180. Available at:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/eco.1573
9. Kleijn, D.; Bommarco, R.; Fijen, T.P.M.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Potts, S.G.; van der Putten, W.H. (2019). Ecological Intensification:
Bridging the gap between science and practice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34, n.2, 154-166. Available at:https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(18)302738?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0169534718302738%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
10. Murgueitio, E.; Calle, Z.; Uribe, F.; Calle, A.; Solorio, B. (2011) Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation oftropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 1654-1663. Available at:https://www.academia.edu/22566303/Native_trees_and_shrubs_for_the_productive_rehabilitation_of_tropical_cattle_ran
ching_lands
11. Newton, P.; Civita, N.; Frankel-Goldwater, L.; Bartel, K.; Johns, C. (2020). What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A review of scholar
and practitioner definitions based on processes and outcomes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4:5777723. Available
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.577723/full
12. Oberč, B.P. & Arroyo Schnell, A. (2020). Approaches to sustainable agriculture. Exploring the pathways towards the future offarming. Brussels, Belgium: IUCN EURO. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.07.en
13. Pretty, J.; Bharucha, Z.P. (2014). Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Annals of Botany, 114, 1571-1596. Available
at: https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/114/8/1571/210078
14. Stenberg, J.A.; Sundh, I.; Becher, P.G.; Björkman, C.; Dubey, M.; Egan, P.A.; Friberg, H.; Gil, J.F.; Jensen, D.F.; Jonsson, M.;
Karlsson, M.; Khalil, S.; Ninkovic, V.; Rehermann, G.; Vetukuri, R.R.; Viketoft, M. (2021). When is it biological control?
A framework of definitions, mechanisms, and classifications. Journal of Pest Science, 94, 665-676. Available at:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10340-021-01354-7
15. Tao, S.; Xu, Y.; Liu, K.; Pan, J.; Gou, S. (2011). Research progress in agricultural vulnerability to climate change. Advances in
ClimateChangeResearch,2,
n.4,
203-210.
Availableat:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927811500504#:~:text=Agricultural%20vulnerability%20to%20clim
ate%20change%20is%20the%20function%20of%20characteristics,or%20unable%20to%20cope%20with
16. The Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU) (2019). Growing Better: Ten Critical Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use. The
GlobalConsultation
Report
of
the
Food
and
Land
Use
Coalition.
FOLU.
Availableat:https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-GrowingBette

2Agri-food Systems Transition - Climate Bonds Initiative17. Tubiello, F.N.; Karl, K.; Flammini, A.; Gütschow, J.; Obli-Laryea, G.; Conchedda, G.; Pan, X.; Qi, S.Y.; Heiðarsdóttir, H.H.; Wanner,
N.; Quadrelli, R.; Souza, L.R.; Benoit, P.; Hayek, M.; Sandalow, D.; Contreras, E.M.; Rosenzweig, C.; Moncayo, J.R.; Conforti, P.;
Torero, M. (2022). Pre- and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-foodsystems. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1795–1809. Available at: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1795/2022/essd-14-17952022-discussion.html
18. Undersander, D.; Albert, B.; Cosgrove, D.; Johnson, D.; Peterson, Paul. (2002). Pasture for profit: A guide to rotational grazing.
The
UniversityofWisconsin-Extension.
Availableat:https://www.clfdccd.com/uploads/2/2/1/7/22174852/pastures_for_profit_guide_to_rotational_grazing.pdf

3Agri-food Systems Transition - Climate Bonds Initiative