Cover Photo by Vanburn Gonsalves on Unsplash

Solution instead of Victim: Integrating Soil Health into Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for Climate Change Mitigation

1. Introduction

The global effort to combat anthropogenic climate change fundamentally requires a dual approach: a drastic reduction in carbon and other Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and enhanced sequestration of atmospheric carbon into natural sinks. While the world's focus often centers on the energy transition, the agricultural sector remains an often underestimated area that is not merely a victim of climate change but a potential core solution.

This paper explores the potential of soil revitalization through regenerative agriculture (RA) to mitigate climate change by focusing on both enhanced carbon sequestration and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Healthy soils are crucial for maximizing carbon sequestration, and RA practices - such as minimizing soil disturbance, maintaining soil cover, and maximizing plant diversity - are essential for achieving and preserving this health. Further, a large-scale shift from conventional agriculture to RA offers a substantial reduction in carbon emissions. This reduction is achieved both directly, by improving soil health and thus reducing CO2 release from the soil, and indirectly, by decreasing the need for synthetic inputs like mineral fertilizers, which contribute significantly to global GHG emissions. Ultimately, this transition offers a potent dual approach to climate change mitigation: simultaneously reducing total carbon emissions while unlocking the soil's potential to capture significantly more atmospheric carbon. This paper will outline the vast potential of regenerative agriculture and healthy soils in the fight against climate change. It will also present an analysis of the freshly updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of countries to assess how effectively states currently recognize and incorporate soil as a crucial tool for climate change mitigation.

Recent research has dramatically highlighted the significance of soil, suggesting that Earth's soil carbon stocks are 45% higher than previously thought (Crézé et al. 2025; also see Gonzalez, 2018). This makes soil health perhaps the most urgent and undervalued climate mitigation strategy available. Thankfully, momentum is building, as evidenced by the new EU Soil Monitoring Law and the new IUCN Resolution, co-sponsored by Save Soil, on a global Soil Security Law. Building on this progress during COP30, this paper highlights the urgent need to integrate soil carbon sequestration into national climate policy. It urges including concise soil-carbon packages in NDC updates and reclassifying soil-related measures with measurable carbon co-benefits from adaptation into explicit mitigation lines to enhance access to climate finance. Furthermore, it recommends prioritizing Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) capacity building in developing nations and designing blended-finance facilities with social and biodiversity safeguards that tie performance payments to independently verified soil organic carbon (SOC) accrual.

2. Improved Carbon Sequestration through Healthy Soils

Next to forests and oceans, the soil ecosystem is one of the largest carbon sinks in the world. The "4 per 1000" initiative, launched during the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21), proposes that increasing soil organic carbon stocks by only 0.4% annually could significantly counteract global greenhouse gas emissions and thus address the challenges due to climate change (Rumpel et al. 2018). The world’s soils contain an estimated 1,500 to 2,400 gigatons (Gt) of organic carbon in the top meter of soil. A 0.4% annual increase in this soil carbon reservoir would mean storing an additional six to ten gigatons of carbon each year. Current global anthropogenic CO2 emissions are around 40 gigatons of CO2 per year which is roughly equivalent to about eleven gigatons of carbon (IPCC, 2019).* Thus, at least theoretically, soils potential to offset annual CO2 emissions to reach the goal of net zero is highly significant.

Given this potential of soil, agricultural soils can have a great positive impact in fulfilling global carbon sequestration potentials. Since agricultural lands accounts for 37% (Foley et al. 2011) of the worlds land surface and contain 50% (IPCC, 2019) of world soils, both cropland and pastures yield significant importance when speaking about carbon sequestration. Given the 4 per 1000 initiative’s target of a 4 per 1000 (i.e. 0.4%) rate of annual increase in global soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks (Soussana et al. 2019), a paper from 2023 estimates that agricultural soils could bind up to 27% of the emissions needed to limit global warming to below 2°C (Save Soil, 2023). The important point however: This sequestration potential can only be realized if soils are in a healthy condition.

While healthy soils can be defined in multiple ways, given several soil properties and characteristics, soil organic matter content, as a critical component of soil quality, serves as a key indicator of overall soil health due to its influence on biological activity, soil structure, nutrient cycling, and water retention (Doran & Zeiss, 2000). Healthy soils are rich in organic matter, which plays a crucial role in carbon sequestration since it is primarily composed of carbon, and its presence in the soil enhances the soil's ability to store carbon for long periods (Lal, 2004). The improved carbon sequestration by healthy soils with rich soil organic matter content in contrast to degraded soils are driven by many processes. For example, healthy soils have improved structure and aggregation, which helps protect organic carbon from decomposition. Good soil structure increases the physical protection of organic carbon within soil aggregates, reducing its exposure to microbial decomposition (Six et al. 2002). Further, healthy soils support a diverse and active microbial community, which plays a vital role in carbon cycling and storage. These microbes help convert plant residues into stable organic matter, effectively locking carbon into the soil (Lehmann & Kleber, 2015). Moreover, healthy soils retain water more effectively, which is crucial for maintaining soil organic matter and supporting plant growth. Better water retention reduces the likelihood of organic matter decomposition and helps maintain carbon stores (Powlson et al. 2011). In consequence of these improved processes, healthy soils support higher plant productivity, leading to greater biomass input into the soil. This continuous input of organic material from plant roots and residues provides a steady supply of carbon to be sequestered in the soil (Post et al. 2001).

3. Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions using Regenerative Agriculture

So far, this paper highlighted soil’s significant potential in improved carbon sequestration which would rely on improved soil health with an increased content of soil organic matter. A proven and often suggested way of increasing soil organic matter and overall soil health are the principles of regenerative agriculture (RA): Minimize soil disturbance, keep the soil covered, maintain living roots in the soil, maximize plant diversity, reintroduce livestock. These principles can be implemented through specific practices according to both socioeconomic as well as natural conditions like soil type or climate in a specific region. Common practices include no-till farming, cover cropping, crop rotations, composting and the usage of organic amendments or for example the implementation of agroforestry (see for example: Lal, 2020; Rhodes, 2017; LaCanne et al. 2018).

While all these principles and practices above have the potential of regenerating soil, the deteriorating state of soil that we see today, on the other hand, is a result of the conventional agriculture that is prevalent throughout the world. Since the Green Revolution modern conventional agriculture is characterized by high levels of synthetic inputs like mineral fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, heavy machinery and mechanization as well as the adoption of monocultures and managed grazing (Tilman et al. 2002). Given that agricultural methods worldwide are almost exclusively consist of conventional agriculture, large scale changes in land management have not only the potential to realize healthy soil’s carbon sequestration potentials but also to reduce emissions from the agricultural sector and thus mitigate climate change. Therefore, in this section, this paper examines the potential of reduced carbon emission in consequence of a large scale shift from conventional to RA.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture vary significantly across different areas, influenced by factors such as agricultural practices, land use, and the types of crops or livestock produced. There is some uncertainty about the total amount of global greenhouse gas emissions that the agricultural sector is responsible for today. Estimates range from 14 to 30 % of all anthropogenic GHG emissions (Bennetzen et al. 2016; Beach et al. 2008; IAEA, 2024). Evidence suggests that, over time, global agriculture has become more efficient in terms of GHG emissions. Although production has been rapidly increasing, emissions have increasingly become decoupled from production. By 2007, the global average carbon footprint per unit of crop and livestock produced was 39% and 44% lower, respectively, than in 1970 (Bennetzen et al. 2015). Since global yield requirements are not projected to decrease and the world needs to intensify its efforts to mitigate climate change, the possibility of an ongoing decoupling from agricultural production and GHG emissions needs to be examined. Given the significant share of global emissions from conventional practices and the before mentioned distinct principles of RA, the next sections will examine how reduced emissions in RA can occur in two ways: directly or indirectly.

3.1 Reduced Direct Emissions from Soil through Regenerative Agriculture

As explored in chapter two, soil can help mitigating climate change by taking up more carbon from the atmosphere and storing in underground. However, it is also necessary to keep the existing carbon stock in place to ensure soils do not become sources of carbon emissions. For example, a release of just 1% of the carbon now contained in Europe’s soils alone, would be equal to the annual emissions from 1 billion cars (European Commission 2011). To avoid direct emissions from soil, practices that maintain or improve soil health as part of the RA framework emerged as an alternative approach to conventional methods in which farmers disturb the soil ecosystem and thus risk carbon releases. The difference in emission between regenerative conservation and conventional tillage methods have received attention for more than 20 years, linking the emission reduction potentials with improvements in soil quality. A comprehensive meta-analysis published in 2016, synthesizing data from 46 peer-reviewed studies and 174 paired observations, investigated the impact of tillage on CO2 emissions across diverse climates, crops, and soil types over entire seasons or years. The analysis revealed that tilled soils emitted an average of 21% more CO2 than untilled soils. Notably, this difference surged to 29% in degraded soils with low soil organic carbon content (<1%) (Abdalla et al. 2016). In a more recent, 6-year long field experiment (2017-2022), Mühlbachová et al. (2023), examined the effect of conventional tillage (plowing to 20–22 cm), reduced tillage (chiseling to 10 cm), and no-tillage on carbon emissions on a yearly basis to also account for distinct weather conditions. The study found that RA practices like reduced and no-tillage, with mulch on the surface of the soil, decreased CO2 emissions by a 6-year average of 45% and 51%, respectively (Mühlbachová et al. 2023). The findings demonstrate that adopting no-tillage practices can significantly minimize carbon dioxide losses from dry land soils, providing a valuable tool in mitigating climate change (Mangalassery et al. 2014). In addition, improving soil health can also contribute to realizing additional carbon sequestration benefits as examined in chapter two.

Further, regenerative agriculture leading to healthy soils increases the resilience of ecosystems to climate change by improving water retention, reducing the impact of extreme weather events, and supporting diverse plant and animal communities. This resilience helps maintain stable carbon cycles and reduces the likelihood of carbon release due to environmental stress (Qiao et al. 2022; Meena & Jha 2018). For example, healthy soils with good structure and more organic matter content make the land less prone to erosion by wind or water. In consequence, more stable soils keep carbon locked in place (Lal et al. 2018). Thus, preventing soil erosion through regenerative practices helps maintain carbon storage instead of emitting it.

3.2 Reduced Indirect Emissions from Less Inputs in Regenerative Agriculture

In addition to the direct emissions reductions from the soil, the transition from conventional to regenerative agriculture can further decrease emissions by impacting the industries that conventional agriculture heavily relies upon (The Climate Drive 2023). Conventional agriculture is heavily dependent on synthetic inputs, such as mineral fertilizers, which have significantly increased since the Green Revolution. The production of these inputs is a significant source of global carbon emissions (Gao & Cabrera Serrenho, 2023).

According to Menegat et al. (2022), the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer supply chain was responsible for estimated emissions of 1.13 GtCO2e in 2018, representing 10.6% of agricultural emissions and 2.1% of global GHG emissions - an amount comparable to the aviation industry (Gao & Cabrera Serrenho, 2023). While regenerative agriculture does not necessarily exclude synthetic inputs, the adoption of regenerative practices results in reduced use during the transition and minimal use after the transition is complete. If applied on a large scale, the reduced use of synthetic inputs, such as nitrogen fertilizers, would lead to less production and transportation, thereby reducing carbon emissions.

A study from the University of Cambridge in 2023 estimates that emissions from fertilizers could be reduced by as much as 80% by 2050, bringing emissions down to one-fifth of current levels without affecting productivity. The researchers argue that the current use of fertilizers is economically inefficient and that more efficient use would significantly reduce emissions without compromising crop productivity (Gao & Cabrera Serrenho, 2023). By adopting regenerative agriculture practices, farmers can reduce their production costs and contribute to a lower carbon footprint for the agriculture industry as a whole. This shift can potentially create a more sustainable and environmentally friendly agricultural system. The World Economic Forum also estimates that greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture could be 6% lower annually by 2030 if a fifth of farmers adopted climate-smart agriculture practices, such as regenerative farming (World Economic Forum 2022). Furthermore, the Rodale Institute has found that regenerative organic agriculture can sequester more carbon than is currently emitted, potentially reversing climate change (Rodale Institute, 2015). And a global switch to regenerative crop and pasture systems could draw down more than 100% of annual CO2 emissions (Rodale Institute, 2020).

4. Soil Health in Nationally Determined Contributions

After examining the updated NDCs as of October 23rd 2025, we find that soil health appears across NDCs primarily through targeted practices rather than as an explicit, standalone priority. Several countries outline specific land-use commitments, adoption goals for soil-related practices, and detailed implementation plans that can be converted into soil‑carbon annexes and structured finance requests.

Some of the most striking quantitative signals from recent NDCs include:

• United Arab Emirates: In 2019, the UAE reported total greenhouse gas emissions of 196.3 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent. By 2035, it aims to reduce this to 103.5 megatonnes, reflecting a 47% reduction.

• Somalia: The country has allocated USD 2.174 billion to its agriculture mitigation plan, aiming to reduce emissions by 4.24 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent. Its broader land-use mitigation strategy targets an additional 19.3 megatonnes of reductions, with a budget of USD 1.158 billion.

• Mongolia: National assessments report 4.7 million hectares of degraded pasture and 81,500 hectares of degraded cultivated land, highlighting the scale of restoration needed.

• Nepal has committed over USD 5 billion to agriculture, forestry, and other land use between 2030 and 2035. Its targets include scaling agroforestry by 5,000 hectares per year. In addition, Nepal will assess the carbon sink potential of increasing Soil Organic Matter across different agricultural land types and cropping systems by 2030. It aims to raise Soil Organic Matter content to at least 4% by 2035, positioning this as a key soil health and mitigation strategy.

• The Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate) is jointly led by the United States and the United Arab Emirates, has mobilized USD 13 billion from over 800 partners as of COP29 in 2024 to fund climate-smart agricultural innovation including research, development, and deployment of technologies that reduce emissions, improve soil health, enhance resilience, and support sustainable food systems globally.

These figures show both the opportunity and the finance gap for converting practice targets into verified soil‑carbon and soil health outcomes (see Annex for more information on specific countries).

How soil is treated in the Nationally Determined Contributions?

Soil does not feature in NDCs as clearly as air features. A majority of NDCs include practices that directly and indirectly affect soil, but explicit framing as “soil health” is uncommon. Several countries report soil monitoring instruments or soil organic carbon targets, and a subset provides hectare‑level and adoption targets that serve as anchors for measurement, reporting, and verification. Commonly cited interventions include conservation agriculture and reduced tillage; agroforestry and integrated crop‑livestock‑forest systems; pasture conversion and rangeland restoration; manure management, composting and waste‑to‑soil pathways; improved fertilizer efficiency and bioinput promotion; climate‑controlled greenhouses and; and coastal restoration of mangroves, seagrass and saltmarsh that accrues sediment carbon.

Country approaches

Developed countries tend to deploy technological levers, market instruments and incentive programmes to deliver soil‑relevant outcomes. For example, national plans in the United States link nutrient management, grazing management, and agroforestry to reductions in methane and nitrous oxide, as well as to soil‑carbon sequestration. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom emphasizes peatland protection and environmental land management schemes aimed at restoring soil organic matter. Switzerland pairs explicit agriculture and consumption‑based reduction targets with policy space for production shifts that can favour soil‑building practices. Canada and Australia combine research and subsidy instruments to support clean agricultural technologies such as precision nutrient management, methane reducing food additives, bio-inputs and regenerative soil practices that lower emissions, enhance soil carbon sequestration and improve climate resilience in farming systems.

Emerging and middle‑income countries combine productivity gains with landscape restoration. Brazil, for example,  highlights pasture conversion and integrated crop‑livestock‑forest systems which combine crops, grazing and trees to restore soil health and increase carbon sequestration. In addition, Brazil implements agroforestry and regenerative agriculture systems, introducing tree cover, perennial crops, soil cover, rotations, and organic inputs. These efforts translate in a shift from low-productivity, erosion-prone, carbon emitting grazing lands to multi-functional, soil-restorative systems. The United Arab Emirates advances controlled‑environment agriculture, strengthened fertilizer regulation and accounts coastal restoration as negative emissions. Several countries, including Mongolia, report extensive areas of degraded land along with detailed mitigation and adaptation plans that can be used to prioritise soil interventions. 

Least developed countries and low‑income countries often present area-based restoration commitments and funded agricultural mitigation programmes  Other examples include land-use packages with clear intervention lists and finance requirements. Small Island Developing States and coastal nations prioritise blue‑carbon protection, local production and mangrove restoration, but most face substantial conditionality and financing gaps.

Implications for measurement, reporting and verification and finance

Hectare and practice adoption targets are the most actionable anchors for soil‑carbon accounting. Where NDCs provide clear area targets, conversion into expected tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent sequestered per year is feasible with an agreed methodology. Priority measurement, reporting and verification investments include soil organic carbon baseline mapping, soil laboratories, mobile testing units, and producer registries coupled to remote sensing for adoption verification. Financially, blended instruments that combine grants for baseline mapping and capacity building, concessional loans for capital investments, and performance payments tied to independently verified soil organic carbon or sediment carbon accrual are the most promising models. National programmes with defined budgets in several NDCs can serve as templates to structure phased funding and set conditions for disbursement.

Risks and safeguards

Soil-carbon and blue-carbon finance must apply conservative accounting approaches to ensure environmental integrity and credibility. This means calculating minimum expected carbon sequestration and maximum potential leakages to begin with. This will at least make soil carbon financeable and therefore mainstream. Performance payments should apply buffer reserves and discount factors, and monitoring must track surrounding land‑use changes to detect leakage. Biodiversity safeguards are essential: ecosystem‑based restoration standards should prevent monoculture planting and preserve habitat connectivity and Key Biodiversity Area integrity. Social safeguards must require free, prior and informed consent for community projects and embed gender‑responsive allocation and training quotas to ensure equitable benefits.

Policy recommendations

1. Include a concise soil-carbon annex in NDC updates. The annex should translate hectare and practice targets into estimated annual carbon sequestration, include methodological notes, and specify a regular reporting schedule.

2. Reclassify soil‑relevant measures currently embedded in adaptation or food‑systems sections into explicit mitigation‑track lines where measurable carbon co‑benefits exist to improve finance accessibility.

3. Prioritize measurement, reporting and verification capacity building in least developed countries and Small Island Developing States, funding soil organic carbon baselines, laboratory upgrades and mobile testing as prerequisites for performance finance.

4. Design blended‑finance facilities that combine seed grants for baselines and capacity building, concessional capital for infrastructure, and performance payments linked to independently verified gains in soil organic carbon or sediment carbon. Existing national programmes with defined budgets and implementation plans can serve as templates for structuring these investments.

5. Embed social and biodiversity safeguards in all finance instruments, including conservative permanence buffers, third‑party verification and gender‑responsive allocations.

5. Summary

The paper presented a comprehensive argument for integrating regenerative agriculture (RA) and soil health as a central strategy in global climate change mitigation efforts. It begins by establishing that the agricultural sector offers a dual solution: enhanced carbon sequestration and significant reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The paper highlighted the immense potential of soil, noting that global soil carbon stocks are estimated to be 45% higher than previously believed, making healthy soil an urgent and undervalued climate solution. This potential is unlocked when soils are healthy, rich in soil organic matter, which improves structure, supports microbial activity, and protects sequestered carbon from decomposition. The second part of the argument focused on the reduction of emissions through a large-scale shift from conventional to regenerative agriculture. This shift leads to reduced direct emissions by minimizing soil disturbance (e.g., no-tillage), which prevents the release of existing carbon stocks—tilled soils can emit over 20% more CO2 than untilled soils. Additionally, it leads to reduced indirect emissions by decreasing the reliance on synthetic inputs like mineral fertilizers. The production of these fertilizers is a major source of global GHGs, comparable to the aviation industry, and RA practices can reduce these fertilizer-related emissions by up to 80%. Finally, the paper analyzed NDCs, finding that while many countries include soil-friendly practices, few explicitly frame soil as a dedicated climate mitigation tool. To address this, the paper concluded with urgent policy recommendations, including the need to require a compact soil-carbon annex in NDC updates, reclassify soil measures with measurable carbon co-benefits from adaptation to explicit mitigation lines to improve finance accessibility, and prioritize MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) capacity building in developing nations.

___

* The conversion factor between CO2 and carbon is based on the molecular weights of carbon (12) and CO2 (44). The ratio is 12/44, meaning that 1 ton of carbon is equivalent to approximately 3.67 tons of CO2. Therefore, 40 gigatons of CO2 corresponds to approximately 11 gigatons of carbon.

Annex: Country Analysis 

Developed countries

1. United States: The NDC links nutrient management, grazing management, agroforestry and reforestation to soil‑carbon sequestration and reductions in methane and nitrous oxide. Manure treatment, biodigesters, feed additives and advanced fertilisers are listed as mitigation levers. Agriculture represented about ten percent of national greenhouse‑gas emissions in 2022.

2. United Kingdom: The NDC highlights low‑carbon farming, Environmental Land Management schemes, peatland protection and hedgerow sequestration. Food‑waste reduction programmes (WRAP, Food Waste Reduction Roadmap) are used to divert organic material back to soils.

3. Switzerland: The NDC sets an agriculture reduction target of 25% by 2035 and 40% by 2050. Consumption‑based reduction targets are 25% by 2030, 35% by 2035 and 66% by 2050. A target to produce 50% of domestic food underpins space for soil‑focused production shifts.

4. Canada: Federal instruments include Agricultural Clean Technology, Agricultural Climate Solutions and a Resilient Agricultural Landscape Program with a USD 250 million cost‑share component. A Greenhouse Gas Offset Credit System is in development. Canada’s international climate finance envelope totals USD 5.3 billion, with 60% allocated to mitigation abroad.

5. Australia: The NDC references a Methane Emissions Reduction in Livestock programme (feed additives) and a Zero Net Emissions Agriculture Cooperative Research Centre.

Other developed states. Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and the Holy See provide limited NDC detail on soil and food systems in general. Liechtenstein notes that roughly 10% of national emissions are unavoidable and offsettable, primarily from agriculture.

Emerging and middle‑income countries

1. Brazil: Brazil’s NDC commits to economy-wide emissions reductions of 59–67% by 2035, relative to 2005 levels, alongside a zero-deforestation objective. Key implementation pathways include the Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan (ABC+ Plan), which promotes sustainable practices such as integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems and pasture recovery; the National Program for Converting Degraded Pastures into Sustainable Agricultural and Forestry Systems (PNCPD), targeting large-scale restoration of degraded lands; the National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (Pronaf), which supports low-emission transitions for smallholders; and the National Bio-inputs Program, which advances soil health and productivity through biological alternatives to synthetic inputs. Together, these initiatives aim to convert degraded pastures, scale integrated systems, and restore soils as part of Brazil’s broader land-use mitigation strategy.

2. United Arab Emirates: The NDC sets an agriculture emission reduction target of 39% by 2035. Measures include vertical farming, organic systems, controlled fertiliser use and the climate‑resilient Sharjah‑1 wheat variety, aligned with a Food Security Strategy to reduce import and transport pressures on soils.

3. Colombia: Agriculture and LULUCF represents 20% and 35% of national emissions respectively. The NDC prioritises climate information systems, sustainable production practices, drought monitoring and food‑loss reduction to relieve pressure on soils.

4. Chile: Agriculture accounts for 8–10% of national emissions. The NDC advances a national strategy on food loss and recovery, public procurement reforms and traceability measures that reduce supply‑chain stress on land.

5. Ecuador: Agriculture and LULUCF together exceed 40% of emissions. The NDC promotes efficient fertiliser use, improved livestock practices, reforestation, crop rotation and agrobiodiversity to strengthen soil use and resilience.

6. Kenya: AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use) comprises 73% of national emissions and agriculture 32%. The NDC targets Climate‑Smart Agriculture across crops, livestock and fisheries, rangeland restoration and expanded extension and agrometeorological services.

7. Mongolia: The NDC reports 4.7 million hectares of degraded pasture and 81,500 hectares of degraded cultivated land. Targets include an unconditional 30.3% reduction excluding LULUCF by 2035 and higher ambition when forest sequestration is included. Total financial needs include USD 8.84 billion for mitigation, of which 92% is unconditional, and USD 1.79 billion for adaptation, with 34% unconditional.

8. Pakistan: The NDC prioritises climate‑smart and climate‑resilient agriculture, including AWD for rice, slow‑release fertilisers, manure management, composting and residue‑burning reductions, with technology needs and capacity building highlighted.

9. Sri Lanka: The NDC sets an economy‑wide ambition near 20% (8% unconditional; 12% conditional). Agriculture represents 7.5% of emissions. Mitigation measures include reduction of post‑harvest losses, improved value addition, renewable energy for farming and processing, Good Animal Husbandry Practices for dairy and monogastrics, Integrated Plant Nutrient Systems (IPNS), Integrated Pest Management (IPM), and promotion of climate‑resilient varieties. Adaptation measures include a National Weather and Climate Platform, revision of agro‑ecological maps, mainstreaming of climate into agriculture and fisheries Ecosystem‑based Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). Nutrition and health impacts are explicitly addressed.

Least developed and low‑income countries

1. Somalia: National emissions were 54.3 MtCO₂e in 2024, with a BAU projection of 84.9 MtCO₂e by 2035. Agriculture accounts for 46% and LULUCF 40% of emissions; methane comprises 49% of the national total. Mitigation commitments include agriculture sector reductions of 4.24 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent (MtCO₂e), supported by USD 2.174 billion, and land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) reductions of 19.3 MtCO₂e with USD 1.158 billion in allocated funding. Interventions span regenerative agriculture, rangeland restoration, improved fodder and rotational grazing, manure management, agroforestry, solar-powered drip irrigation, and enhanced rice cultivation practices. Technology transfer priorities include drought-resilient seeds, livestock early warning systems (EWS), and aquaponics.

2. Nepal: The AFOLU mitigation target is 2,472 GgCO₂eq by 2035. The NDC sets irrigation expansion to 463,000 hectares, agroforestry expansion at 5,000 hectares per year, 500 climate‑resilient farms by 2035, transition of 45,000 households to agroecological systems and installation of 500,000 improved cattle sheds. The NDC aims to reduce post‑harvest losses to 15% by 2035 and pledges over USD 5 billion unconditionally for AFOLU across 2030–35.

3. Ethiopia: BAU projections rise from 210.4 Mt CO₂e in 2025 to 237.6 Mt CO₂e by 2035. The supplied unconditional pathway reduces the projected 2035 total by 40.7%; the conditional pathway reduces it by 70.3%. Historical mitigation shows forestry delivered 79.1% of reductions and agriculture 17.3%, with roughly 5.6% attributable specifically to soil measures. Government spending in 2024–25 included 170 million birr on agriculture mitigation and 1,740 million birr on agriculture adaptation. AFOLU received 29% of reported climate finance. CSA adoption increased by 10 million hectares since 2018.

4. Eswatini: Agriculture comprises 38% of emissions. The NDC targets rehabilitation of 75,000 hectares of degraded communal grazing lands, a five percent increase in soil organic carbon across 30,000 hectares, CSA adoption on 50,000 hectares, manure management on 20% of commercial livestock farms, planting of 15 million trees by 2030 and restoration of 5,000 hectares of indigenous forest by 2035.

Lesotho, Liberia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and others. Lesotho aims for 50% of land under conservation agriculture by 2030 and 60% of livestock under improved management by 2030. Liberia sets a headline target of 64% emissions reduction by 2035 (10% unconditional; 54% conditional) and a sector target of 40% for agriculture; Liberia plans low‑emissions rice (AWD/aeration), a 60% reduction in chemical fertilizer use through organic alternatives, 100 farmer field schools and training of 5,000 farmers in conservation agriculture by 2028, and development of post‑harvest and value‑addition facilities by 2035.

Small island developing states and coastal nations

1. Vanuatu: The NDC provides a comprehensive food and agriculture programme. Adaptation actions 1–11 address food systems and actions 14–17 focus on fisheries. Measures include agroforestry, livestock training, storage and preservation infrastructure, farm‑to‑market links, dietary shifts and nutrition programmes. Most actions are conditional on external finance.

2. Solomon Islands: The NDC targets up to 34% below BAU by 2035 when afforestation and reforestation removals are included. Measures include forest safeguarding, livestock manure conversion to biogas with a specific livestock GHG reduction target, productivity increases, climate‑smart practice adoption, and fisheries and aquaculture improvements. A National Adaptation Plan is scheduled before 2028.

3. Belize: The NDC targets avoidance of 6,234 ktCO₂e by 2035 compared with BAU and conditional AFOLU sequestration of 5,110 ktCO₂e by 2035. The Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) and food-systems package totals USD 412.4 million by 2035, with a 93% funding gap. Measures include agrosilvopastoral systems, mangrove and peatland protection, and water harvesting.

4. Barbados: The NDC commits to a 45% unconditional economy‑wide reduction by 2035 and up to 70% conditional. AFOLU is presented as a net sink. Priorities include water management, soil health, crop diversification, post‑harvest practices and infrastructure resilience. Identified financial needs include USD 40 million for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) and USD 150 million for the blue economy.

Maldives, Niue, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Tonga, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Typical measures include local food‑production scale‑up, mangrove and wetland conservation, promotion of salt‑tolerant crops and hydroponics, smallholder composting and diversified livelihoods. Funding needs are generally large and conditional.

______

For all recently updated National Determined Contributions shared by country Parties under the UNFCCC, please see this link: https://unfccc.int/NDCREG

References

Abdalla, K., Chivenge, P., Ciais, P., & Chaplot, V. (2016). No-tillage lessens soil CO 2 emissions the most under arid and sandy soil conditions: results from a meta-analysis. Biogeosciences, 13(12), 3619-3633.

Beach, R. H., DeAngelo, B. J., Rose, S., Li, C., Salas, W., & DelGrosso, S. J. (2008). Mitigation potential and costs for global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions 1. Agricultural Economics, 38(2), 109-115

Bennetzen, E. H., Smith, P., & Porter, J. R. (2015). Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from global agricultural production: 1970–2050. Global change biology, 22(2), 763-781

Bennetzen, E. H., Smith, P., & Porter, J. R. (2016). Agricultural production and greenhouse gas emissions from world regions—The major trends over 40 years. Global Environmental Change, 37, 43-55

Crézé, C., Saatchi, S., Kwon, N., Yang, Y., and Li, S. (2025). High-resolution global map (100 m) of soil organic carbon reveals critical ecosystems for carbon storage, Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-294

Doran, J.W., & Zeiss, M.R. (2000). Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic component of soil quality. Applied Soil Ecology, 15(1), 3-11. doi:10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00067-6

European Commission (2011). Soil, the hidden part of the climate cycle. Retrieved from https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/soil_and_climate_en.pdf

Foley, J. A., et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337-342. doi:10.1038/nature10452

Gao, Y. & Cabrera Serrenho, A. (2023). Greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizers could be reduced by up to one-fifth of current levels by 2050 with combined interventions. Nat Food 4, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00698-w

Gonzalez, Y. N., Bacon, A. R., & Harris, W. G. (2018). A billion tons of unaccounted for carbon in the southeastern United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(15), 7580–7587.

IAEA. (2024). Greenhouse gas reduction. IAEA. Retrieved August 25, 2024, from https://www.iaea.org/topics/greenhouse-gas-reduction

IPCC (2019). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Chapter 2: Land–Climate Interactions

Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304(5677), 1623-1627. doi:10.1126/science.1097396

Lal, R., Mokma, D., & Lowery, B. (2018). Relation between soil quality and erosion. In Soil quality and soil erosion (pp. 237-258). CRC press.

Lal, R. (2020). Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 75(5), 123A-124A. doi:10.2489/jswc.2020.0620A

LaCanne, C. E., & Lundgren, J. G. (2018). Regenerative agriculture: Merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ, 6, e4428. doi:10.7717/peerj.4428

Lehmann, J. & Kleber, M. (2015). The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature, 528, 60-68. doi:10.1038/nature16069

Mangalassery, S., Sjögersten, S., Sparkes, D. et al. (2014). To what extent can zero tillage lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from temperate soils?. Sci Rep 4, 4586. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04586

Meena, R. P., & Jha, A. (2018). Conservation agriculture for climate change resilience: A microbiological perspective. Microbes for climate resilient agriculture, 165-190.

Menegat, S., Ledo, A. & Tirado, R. (2022). Greenhouse gas emissions from global production and use of nitrogen synthetic fertilisers in agriculture. Sci Rep 12, 14490. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18773-w

Mühlbachová G, Růžek P, Kusá H, Vavera R. (2023). CO2 Emissions from Soils under Different Tillage Practices and Weather Conditions. Agronomy. 13(12):3084. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123084

Powlson, D. S., Whitmore, A. P., & Goulding, K. W. T. (2011). Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. European Journal of Soil Science, 62(1), 42-55. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01342.x

Post, W. M., Izaurralde, R. C., Mann, L. K., & Bliss, N. (2001). Monitoring and verifying changes of organic carbon in soil. Climatic Change, 51, 73-99. doi:10.1023/A:1017514802028

Qiao, L., Wang, X., Smith, P., Fan, J., Lu, Y., Emmett, B., ... & Fan, M. (2022). Soil quality both increases crop production and improves resilience to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 12(6), 574-580.

Rhodes, C. J. (2017). The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Science Progress, 100(1), 80-129. doi:10.3184/003685017X14876775256165

Rodale Institute 2015. Regenerative Agriculture: A White Paper. Retrieved from https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/rodale-white-paper.pdf?form=MG0AV3

Rodale Institute 2020. Regenerative Ag Could Sequester 100% of Annual Carbon Emissions. Rodale Institute. Retrieved from https://rodaleinstitute.org/blog/regenerative-ag-could-sequester-100-percent-of-annual-carbon-emissions/?form=MG0AV3

Rumpel, C., Lehmann, J., & Chabbi, A. (2018). '4 per 1,000'initiative will boost soil carbon for climate and food security. Nature, 553(7686)

Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A., & Paustian, K. (2002). Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant and Soil, 241, 155-176. doi:10.1023/A:1016125726789

Soussana, J. F., Lutfalla, S., Ehrhardt, F., Rosenstock, T., Lamanna, C., Havlík, P., et al. (2019). Matching policy and science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000-soils for food security and climate’initiative. Soil and Tillage Research, 188, 3-15

Save Soil (2023). Quantitative Assessment of Soil's Potential to Sequester Carbon to Mitigate Climate Change. Conscious Planet. Retrieved from https://consciousplanet.org/en/save-soil/blog/quantitative-assessment-of-soil-s-potential-to-sequester-carbon-to-mitigate-clima

The Climate Drive (2023). Use Regenerative Practices to Reduce Agricultural Emissions. Retrieved from https://www.theclimatedrive.org/action-library/use-regenerative-practices-to-reduce-agricultural-emissions?form=MG0AV3

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671-677. doi:10.1038/nature01014

World Economic Forum (2022). What is regenerative agriculture? Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/what-is-regenerative-agriculture/#:~:text=In%20the%20European%20Union%2C%20the%20World%20Economic%20Forum,farmers%20adopted%20%E2%80%9Cclimate-smart%E2%80%9D%20agriculture%20such%20as%20regenerative%20farming.