ABSTRACT
Amid the global pursuit of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the agricultural sector is evolving from a traditional food supplier into a key driver for climate resilience and ecological sustainability. Drawing on the comparative experiences from Japan, the Netherlands, Australia, and Thailand, this study identifies three models of agricultural net-zero governance: the government-led system-regulatory model, the market-oriented market-driven model, and the inclusivity-focused eco-developmental model. The analysis reveals that Taiwan’s agricultural landscape embodies a dual structure, characterized by highly intensive farming in the west and ecologically diverse systems in the east, rendering a single governance pathway inadequate. To address this, the paper proposes a zonal management strategy: western Taiwan should prioritize low-carbon technologies and circular resource utilization, while eastern Taiwan should focus on developing carbon sequestration markets and ecosystem service/ mechanism. In addition, the study introduces a comprehensive performance evaluation framework built around four pillars—mitigation, sequestration, circularity, and green trends—to transcend the limitations of conventional emission-centric assessments. Ultimately, this research provides a policy blueprint for Taiwan that seeks to harmonize decarbonization, resilience, and just transition, while offering strategic insights for other Asia-Pacific countries confronting similar environmental challenges.
Keywords: agricultural net-zero transition, zonal management strategy, performance evaluation framework, net-zero governance models, climate resilience
INTRODUCTION
Global efforts to address climate change have entered a new and increasingly challenging stage. Although the goal of “net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” has gained broad international consensus, a significant gap persists between policy commitments and actual implementation (OECD, 2024). The OECD’s recent policy brief Fast-tracking Net Zero by Building Climate and Economic Resilience further emphasizes that accelerated action in the coming years will be critical to meeting the Paris Agreement’s temperature control targets. Such acceleration entails not only the rapid diffusion and deployment of low-carbon technologies but also the capacity of governments to design coherent and synergistic policy packages that advance decarbonization while simultaneously strengthening climate and economic resilience (OECD, 2025).
In the agricultural sector, pathways for systemic transformation are becoming increasingly clear. Rosa and Gabrielli (2023) demonstrate that global agricultural mitigation encompasses a diverse set of technological options, including on-farm energy decarbonization, improvements in nitrogen fertilizer efficiency, alternative rice cultivation systems, and enhanced soil carbon sequestration. Yet, they also stress that technological options alone are insufficient to overcome disparities across countries in terms of economic costs, social acceptance, and governance capacity—a view that resonates with the OECD’s concern that policy design must be context-specific (OECD, 2024). Within this context, Taiwan’s agricultural transition toward net-zero presents a unique challenge. Its agricultural landscape is characterized by a distinct dual structure: the western plains are dominated by small-scale but highly intensive farming systems, facing environmental pressures and resource constraints similar to those of Japan and the Netherlands; by contrast, the eastern regions and mountainous areas possess rich ecological resources, offering significant potential for nature-based solutions akin to those pursued in Australia and Thailand. This complexity implies that Taiwan cannot directly replicate the experience of any single country, but instead must seek an integrated pathway tailored to its local conditions.
To address this challenge, this study raises a central question: in light of diverse international experiences, how can Taiwan design an optimal policy package that both accelerates the transition and ensures resilience? To answer this question, we adopt a comparative case study approach, examining the net-zero pathways of four representative countries—Japan, the Netherlands, Australia, and Thailand—and distilling them into three governance models: the system-regulatory model represented by Japan and the Netherlands, the market-driven model of Australia, and the eco-developmental model of Thailand. The objective of this study is to use these comparative insights to propose a net-zero strategy appropriate to Taiwan’s national context and to establish a multidimensional evaluation framework that can assess its effectiveness, thereby offering a concrete and actionable policy blueprint for Taiwan as well as other Asia-Pacific countries facing similar challenges.
EXPLANATION OF THE NET-ZERO MODELS OF FOUR COUNTRIES
There is no universally applicable single pathway for achieving agricultural net-zero transitions. Countries have developed distinctive approaches shaped by differences in resource endowments, industrial structures, environmental pressures, and governance capacities (OECD, 2024). Based on a comparative analysis of four countries, this study categorizes these governance approaches into three representative models: the system-regulatory model, the market-driven model, and the eco-developmental model. Each of these models embodies unique characteristics in terms of governance logic, technological portfolios, and supply-chain integration. Collectively, they provide valuable lessons for Taiwan in identifying the most suitable pathway toward agricultural net-zero. The details of these models are elaborated as follows:
System-regulatory model
The system-regulatory model is primarily applied in countries with limited land area, dense populations, highly intensive agriculture, and substantial endogenous environmental pressures, such as Japan and the Netherlands. The defining feature of this model lies in the government’s role as a strong planner and regulator, exercising top-down design and strict regulation to optimize and restructure the agricultural system in a highly systematic manner.
In terms of governance logic, this model is problem-oriented, establishing legally binding emission caps that directly target the most urgent environmental challenges. For example, the Netherlands introduced stringent emission regulations to address the “nitrogen crisis” (Erbach & Dewulf, 2024). To achieve such targets, governments devise detailed national strategies, such as Japan’s Green Food System Strategy (known in Japanese as MIDORI), which translates a 2050 long-term vision into concrete key performance indicators (KPIs), ranging from fertilizer and pesticide reduction to the expansion of organic farming areas (MAFF, 2021). To ensure the continuity of this strategy, the Japanese government subsequently enacted the Green Food System Act, providing a legal foundation and policy Incentives for related mitigation and sustainability measures (MAFF, 2022).
With respect to technological portfolios, this model relies heavily on innovation to decouple production efficiency from environmental impacts. Its policy mix encompasses a range of advanced mitigation technologies, with particular emphasis on: (1) sustainable nitrogen management, such as the Netherlands’ promotion of low-emission livestock housing and manure-separation technologies to reduce ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions at the source (Kros et al., 2024); (2) energy decarbonization in controlled-environment agriculture, exemplified by the Dutch greenhouse horticulture sector’s adoption of geothermal energy, industrial waste heat, and full electrification to reduce fossil fuel dependency (Burgering, 2024; McKinsey & Company, 2023); and (3) methane reduction in livestock systems, such as the Netherlands’ evaluation and deployment of innovative feed additives like Bovaer® (dsm-firmenich, 2024). Japan, by contrast, has emphasized systemic field management, including intermittent drainage in rice paddies to reduce methane emissions (Fuhrmann-Aoyagi et al., 2024), and has integrated such methodologies into its J-Credit carbon credit mechanism, thereby creating economic incentives for farmers to adopt emission-reducing practices (MAFF, 2023).
The strengths of this model lie in its clarity of objectives and high implementation efficiency, making it effective in addressing urgent environmental crises. However, its challenges are equally significant. As noted by the OECD (2024; 2025), if the distributional impacts of transition are not adequately managed, highly stringent regulatory measures may impose severe burdens on farmers’ livelihoods, generating social resistance and delaying progress. The success of the system-regulatory model therefore hinges on governments’ capacity for effective communication, as well as their ability to design and implement accompanying measures that ensure a just transition and maintain the social acceptability of policies.
Market-driven model
Australia provides a typical example of the market-driven model, characterized by vast land areas, a highly export-oriented agricultural sector, and a strong degree of industry autonomy. In this model, the government shifts from acting as a “direct regulator” to assuming the role of “market architect” and “rule-setter.” Its core logic lies in the design of market mechanisms that monetize ecological benefits—such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation—that were previously difficult to price, thereby incentivizing land managers to voluntarily engage in mitigation and sequestration activities.
The cornerstone of this model is Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) and the Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCU) system. These programs establish scientifically validated methodologies for agricultural activities such as soil carbon sequestration, reforestation, avoided deforestation, and feed additive-based methane reduction, enabling their mitigation outcomes to be converted into tradable carbon credits (Wood et al., 2021; SJT Consulting & RepuTex Energy, 2023). Within this framework, farmers and land managers are not merely food producers but also providers of climate solutions. This approach has also reinforced industry autonomy; for instance, Australia’s red meat sector voluntarily adopted the “Carbon Neutral by 2030 (CN30)” target and developed a comprehensive strategy encompassing technological innovation, supply-chain management, and market engagement (Meat & Livestock Australia, 2020).
The key strength of this model lies in its ability to leverage relatively limited government expenditure to mobilize large-scale private investment and drive land-use transitions, thereby generating new opportunities for rural economic growth (Ernst & Young, 2021). Nevertheless, the model faces several challenges, including stringent requirements for the accuracy of measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) methodologies, as well as uncertainties arising from carbon market price volatility. Moreover, verifying the authenticity and additionality of mitigation outcomes, while preventing misleading environmental claims, continues to pose significant institutional challenges (Milne et al., 2024).
Eco-developmental model
The eco-developmental model is commonly observed in developing countries, where smallholder farmers and nations dominate agriculture face multiple simultaneous pressures from climate change, food security, and rural development. Thailand serves as a representative example of this model. Its core governance logic does not treat net-zero as a stand-alone environmental target; rather, it integrates climate objectives into the broader national sustainable development agenda, exemplified by Thailand’s Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) Economy Model. The central policy focus is on transforming climate action into opportunities to strengthen smallholder resilience, promote industrial upgrading, and generate green growth (Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2022).
In practice, this model emphasizes enhancing the climate and economic resilience of smallholders to address constraints related to finance, technology, and market access. One illustrative example is the Rice NAMA Project, jointly implemented by the Thai government and international partners. The initiative aimed to engage 100,000 rice farmers by promoting a low-cost and user-friendly package of integrated technologies, with Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) irrigation as a key measure. AWD enables significant reductions in water use and methane emissions while maintaining yields (Dharma, 2021; Sriphirom & Rossopa, 2023). In addition, the government has promoted the resource utilization of livestock waste, such as encouraging farmers to install small-scale biogas digesters that convert manure into renewable energy and organic fertilizer (Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2022).
The strengths of this model lie in its emphasis on social inclusiveness and climate resilience, ensuring that the needs of vulnerable groups are addressed during the transition. However, its primary challenges stem from a heavy reliance on international finance and technical assistance, while domestic constraints—including infrastructure conditions and farmers’ educational levels—may hinder progress. As such, the model requires long-term and stable policy support as well as sustained capacity building (United Nations Food Systems Coordination Hub & FAO, 2025).
NET-ZERO STRATEGIES FOR TAIWAN
The preceding international comparison demonstrates that there is no single optimal pathway for agricultural net-zero transitions. The success of each country lies in selecting a model aligned with its specific national conditions, industrial structure, and governance capacity. Taiwan’s agriculture is characterized by a dual structure of intensive smallholder farming and highly diverse ecosystems, indicating that directly replicating any single model would be inappropriate. Consequently, Taiwan’s optimal pathway should be a context-specific multi-dimensional integration, combining the advantages of different models to respond to the OECD’s (2025) call for “accelerating net zero while simultaneously ensuring economic resilience and just transition.”
Taiwan’s strategic challenges stem from the intrinsic contrasts within its agricultural geography. On the one hand, the western plains are dominated by highly intensive farming systems, facing land and environmental pressures similar to those of Japan and the Netherlands, and thus requiring technological innovation and systemic optimization to enhance efficiency and reduce ecological footprints. On the other hand, the eastern and mountainous regions are endowed with rich forests, marine resources, and biodiversity, constituting Taiwan’s critical “natural capital.” These areas hold significant potential for carbon sequestration and the development of ecosystem services, resembling the contexts of Australia and Thailand.
Accordingly, Taiwan’s most suitable strategy should consist of a diversified pathway tailored to local conditions, with the core aim of reconciling intensive production with ecological values. This implies that policy instruments should not rely on a uniform approach but rather incorporate regional differentiation and flexibility, introducing varied governance logics and incentive mechanisms according to local contexts, thereby transforming potentially conflicting objectives into complementary policy portfolios. Based on these principles, this study recommends that Taiwan’s net-zero strategy be advanced through the concept of zonal management:
Western Intensive Agricultural Zone
It is recommended that the western region adopt a system-management approach, with policy priorities focused on improving production efficiency, reducing emissions, and promoting circular resource use. Drawing on the experiences of Japan and the Netherlands, priority could be given to advancing the “high-impact technology clusters” defined by IDH & Intellecap (2023). Specific directions include:
- Promoting precision agriculture and low-carbon inputs: With the support of policy subsidies and technical extension, farmers could more widely adopt measures such as smart irrigation and precision fertilization, aligning with the significant mitigation potential of “sustainable nitrogen management” identified by Rosa & Gabrielli (2023).
- Establishing regional waste management systems: At the county or township level, livestock manure resource centers could be developed to convert waste into biogas energy and organic fertilizer, thereby advancing internal agricultural circularity.
- Enhancing energy efficiency in controlled-environment agriculture: For energy-intensive segments such as greenhouses, cold chains, and processing facilities, policies could support renewable energy integration (e.g., agrivoltaics) and energy-efficient equipment to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Eastern Ecological Zone
It is recommended that the eastern region adopt a combination of market-driven and eco-developmental approaches, with policy focus being placed on enhancing carbon sequestration and strengthening resilience. The overarching goal is to transform ecological conservation practices into sustainable income streams for farmers, thereby achieving multiple benefits of environmental protection, carbon sequestration enhancement, and farmer income growth. Based on the experiences of Australia and Thailand, possible directions include:
- Building localized “natural capital” markets: The government, acting as a “market architect,” could accelerate the development of soil and forest carbon sequestration methodologies tailored to Taiwan’s conditions and integrate them into the domestic carbon trading system. This would advance the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies highlighted by Rosa & Gabrielli (2023) from theoretical potential to market-based practice, similar to Australia’s approach.
- Promoting Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs: Drawing on Thailand’s smallholder support policies, direct payment schemes linked to ecological indicators (e.g., biodiversity, water conservation) could be designed to encourage farmers to adopt environmentally friendly practices such as agroforestry and organic farming.
- Strengthening climate resilience infrastructure: Greater investment could be directed toward community-based disaster early warning systems and water resource adaptation facilities, alongside expanding agricultural insurance coverage, in order to improve smallholder capacity to cope with extreme weather events.
Challenges of Implementing Zonal Management
The greatest challenge in realizing net-zero strategies under a zonal management framework lies in cross-sectoral coordination and integration. Issues such as the spatial allocation of agrivoltaics, the distribution of water resources between agriculture and industry, and the regulation and verification of carbon markets cannot be resolved by the agricultural sector alone. Thus, a higher-level inter-ministerial coordination mechanism is required to ensure consistency of policy direction and effective resource integration, thereby advancing a whole-of-government approach to net-zero governance.
To effectively guide and assess the outcomes of agricultural net-zero transition, the establishment of a clear and comprehensive performance evaluation framework is essential. However, most existing indicator systems in other countries remain closely tied to conventional greenhouse gas inventory standards, with excessive emphasis on accounting for “total emissions.” While such an approach provides a necessary baseline, it is limited in several respects: it cannot distinguish whether mitigation results stem from technological efficiency gains or from simple contraction of sectoral scale, nor can it adequately reflect the broader socio-economic and ecological impacts of net-zero transitions.
COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Frontline policy discussions have increasingly emphasized that the net-zero transition is far more than a matter of carbon reduction alone. The OECD (2025) report underscores that a successful transition must simultaneously build economic resilience and social well-being. With the deep integration of global supply chains, focusing solely on direct production-side emissions is no longer sufficient, as upstream and downstream “hidden emissions” (Scope 3) often account for an even larger share, posing major obstacles to carbon neutrality for both enterprises and nations (UNEP FI, 2024). These trends collectively indicate the need for an evaluation framework that goes beyond conventional carbon accounting—one that can capture the quality rather than merely the quantity of net-zero transitions.
To address this challenge, and being informed by the practical experiences of the three international models as well as Taiwan’s agricultural policy framework, this study proposes a comprehensive performance evaluation system structured around four pillars: mitigation, sequestration, circularity, and green trends (see Table 1). Building upon existing greenhouse gas inventory baselines, this framework incorporates additional indicators of efficiency, ecology, and resilience, thereby providing Taiwan and other countries with a more holistic and forward-looking assessment tool. The advantage of this framework lies in its flexibility to be applied in complex contexts such as Taiwan’s, offering differentiated evaluation instruments tailored to the objectives of zonal management. To further illustrate its application, the following section examines its relevance under distinct regional contexts.
- Efficiency-driven transition in the West
For the western intensive agricultural zone, characterized by institutionalized management, policy outcomes can primarily be evaluated through efficiency-oriented indicators under the pillars of mitigation and circularity (Indicators 1.2 and 3.2). These indicators provide insights into whether technological upgrades in western agriculture are achieving reductions in the environmental footprint per unit of output while maintaining high levels of productivity.
- Value-driven transition in the East
For the eastern region, where market-oriented and eco-developmental logics prevail, transition outcomes are most evident in the sequestration pillar, particularly the potential indicators (Indicator 2.2). These indicators assess whether eastern Taiwan’s sustainable development models effectively convert ecological value into quantifiable carbon assets and direct income streams for farmers.
- Establishing nationally consistent benchmarks
At the national level, the total emission indicator under the mitigation pillar (Indicator 1.1) and the resilience indicator under the green trends pillar (Indicator 4.2) serve as cross-regional benchmarks. These ensure that the differentiated zonal strategies ultimately contribute to the overarching national goals of emission reduction and resilience enhancement.
Table 1. Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Framework for Agricultural Net-Zero Transition
|
Core pillar
|
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
|
Unit of measurement
|
Indicator type
|
Policy implications & international reference
|
|
1. Mitigation
|
1.1 Net GHG emissions from the agricultural sector
|
ton CO₂e / year
|
Baseline total
|
Inventory and target attainment: directly linked to national NDC commitments.
|
|
1.2 Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) of key commodities
|
kg CO₂e / kg product
|
Efficiency indicator
|
Measures supply chain decoupling: referencing experiences from the Netherlands and Australia, responds to green trade requirements.
|
|
2. Sequestration
|
2.1 Net forest carbon removals
|
ton CO₂e / year
|
Baseline total
|
National carbon sink accounting: evaluates forestry contributions to negative emissions.
|
|
2.2 Soil / marine carbon sequestration potential
|
ton C / ha / year (rate) or area (ha) & health status (potential)
|
Potential indicator
|
Quantifies natural capital: referencing experiences from Japan and Australia, provides the foundation for carbon credit and ecosystem service markets.
|
|
3. Circularity
|
3.1 Reuse rate of agricultural residual resources
|
% (by weight or energy)
|
Action indicator
|
Evaluates waste-to-resource effectiveness: linked with circular economy policies.
|
|
3.2 Nutrient (N, P) cycling efficiency of agricultural systems
|
% (input-output ratio)
|
Efficiency indicator
|
Measures resource efficiency of systems: referencing the Netherlands, integrates mitigation with water pollution control objectives.
|
|
4. Green trends
|
4.1 Share of renewable energy in agriculture
|
% (of total agricultural electricity use)
|
Transition indicator
|
Assesses energy transition contribution: referencing Japan, evaluates the shift from agriculture as an energy consumer to an energy producer.
|
|
4.2 Agricultural climate resilience economic indicator
|
Disaster losses as % of agricultural GDP
|
Resilience indicator
|
Evaluates adaptation effectiveness: referencing Thailand’s policy priorities, quantifies the economic resilience of agricultural systems to climate risks.
|
Source: Tables compiled from this study.
The framework proposed in this study is not designed in isolation but is intended to align with existing policy monitoring systems. Many of its core indicators already have a robust data foundation for application. For instance, the indicator “Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Potential” (2.2) can be estimated based on long-term tracking data of action indicators such as the area under organic farming and green manure promotion; similarly, the assessment of “Nutrient Cycling Efficiency of Agricultural Systems” (3.2) can be derived by integrating existing data on the reuse of agricultural residual resources. This design enhances both the feasibility and verifiability of the framework in practice. Moreover, it enables the transformation of fragmented “action indicators” into systematic “performance indicators” that better capture actual outcomes, thereby compensating for the limitations of conventional systems. More broadly, the introduction of a comprehensive performance framework extends net-zero governance tools beyond a narrow focus on emission inventories, toward a comprehensive monitoring architecture capable of reflecting the quality and progress of transitions, thereby strengthening the assessment of comprehensiveness, robustness, and sustainability along the net-zero pathway.
CONCLUSION
Amid the global momentum toward net-zero emissions, the agricultural sector is evolving from a traditional food supplier into a central pillar of national climate resilience, ecological health, and economic sustainability. This study sought to identify an optimal transition pathway for Taiwan within this global context. Through a comparative analysis of four representative countries—Japan, the Netherlands, Australia, and Thailand—this paper demonstrates that there is no universally applicable model for agricultural net-zero transitions. Instead, each country must craft context-specific policy packages that reflect its own conditions. For Taiwan, whose agriculture is characterized by both highly intensive systems in the west and ecologically rich landscapes in the east, the most suitable pathway is not the replication of a single model but the adoption of a zonal management approach. In this strategy, the western region prioritizes efficiency improvements and circular economy practices, while the eastern region emphasizes carbon sequestration potential and the conversion of ecosystem services into drivers of local sustainability. This dual pathway aligns with the OECD’s (2025) emphasis on achieving net-zero in tandem with economic resilience and just transition.
Furthermore, this study introduces a multidimensional performance evaluation framework that goes beyond conventional greenhouse gas inventories by incorporating indicators of efficiency intensity, sequestration contributions, system resilience, and circular benefits. This framework transforms net-zero governance from a narrow focus on outcome inventories into a monitoring architecture capable of capturing transition quality and multiple co-benefits, thereby providing a more precise basis for policy adjustment.
In sum, agricultural net-zero transition is a systemic endeavor that requires not only technological innovation but also adaptive governance and social inclusiveness. The zonal management strategy and comprehensive performance framework proposed herein represent Taiwan’s localized response to the global net-zero challenge. Looking ahead, grounding policies in robust data while balancing market incentives, regulatory frameworks, ecological resilience, and social equity will be essential to advancing Taiwan’s agriculture toward a low-carbon, sustainable, and competitive future.
REFERENCES
Burgering, C. (2024, October 24). Dutch agriculture not on track to meet climate targets. ABN AMRO Group Economics.
Dharma, A. W. (2021). Scoping study: Climate smart rice, country report – Thailand (Promoting global best practices and scaling of low emissions technologies by engaging the private and public sectors in the paddy rice sector). United Nations Environment Programme, Asia Pacific Office.
dsm-firmenich. (2024). Bovaer®: The proven solution to immediately reduce enteric methane from dairy and beef cattle [Brochure]. dsm-firmenich. https://www.dsm-firmenich.com/bovaer
Erbach, G., & Dewulf, N. (2024). The Netherlands' climate action strategy (PE 767.176). European Parliamentary Research Service.
Ernst & Young Australia. (2021, September 13). How can Australia’s agriculture sector realise opportunity in a low emissions future? Farmers for Climate Action.
Fuhrmann-Aoyagi, M. B., Miura, K., & Watanabe, K. (2024). Sustainability in Japan’s agriculture: An analysis of current approaches. Sustainability, 16(2), 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020596
IDH, & Intellecap. (2023). A net zero pathway for agri-food: Evidence from coffee and soy in Brazil. Utrecht: IDH; Mumbai: Intellecap.
Kros, H., Cals, T., Gies, E., Groenendijk, P., Lesschen, J. P., Voogd, J. C., Hermans, T., & Velthof, G. (2024). Region oriented and integrated approach to reduce emissions of nutrients and greenhouse gases from agriculture in the Netherlands. Science of The Total Environment, 909, 168501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168501
McKinsey & Company. (2023, November). From ambition to action: Decarbonization and beyond in the Netherlands. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/from-ambition-to-action-decarbonization-and-beyond-in-the-netherlands
Meat & Livestock Australia. (2020). The Australian red meat industry’s carbon neutral by 2030 roadmap. Meat & Livestock Australia. https://www.mla.com.au/CN30
Milne, S., Beaver, S., Baljak, C., Cox, A., & Howden, M. (2024). Carbon farming co-benefits: A review of concepts, policy and potential in Australian landscapes. The Rangeland Journal, 46, RJ24015. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ24015
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). (2021). Strategy for sustainable food systems “MeaDRI” (Summary). [In Japanese].
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). (2022). Green Food System Act. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/kanbo/kankyo/seisaku/midori/houritsu.html#houritsu
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). (2023). Results of the FY2022 Basic Survey Project on Farmland Soil Carbon Sequestration. [In Japanese].
OECD. (2024). Closing in on net zero: Background and issues explored in Phase Two of the Net Zero+ project (Net Zero+ Policy Papers No. 1). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/bbe55705-en
OECD. (2025). Fast-tracking net zero by building climate and economic resilience: A summary for policymakers. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f2c22c96-en
Rosa, L., & Gabrielli, P. (2023). Achieving net-zero emissions in agriculture: A review. Environmental Research Letters, 18(6), 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acd5e8
SJT Consulting, & RepuTex Energy. (2023). ACCU market analysis: Final report for publication. Australian Government, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
Sriphirom, P., & Rossopa, B. (2023). Assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation from rice cultivation using alternate wetting and drying and rice straw biochar in Thailand. Agricultural Water Management, 290, 108586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108586
Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2022). Thailand net zero 2050 roadmap. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance. (2024, December). Tackling hidden emissions for a net-zero transition: A discussion paper on Scope 3 integration. UNEP Finance Initiative; Principles for Responsible Investment. https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-alliance/
United Nations Food Systems Coordination Hub, & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2025). Convergence action blueprint: Thailand.
The Pathway to Net-Zero in Taiwan’s Agriculture: From International Experience to Localized Action
ABSTRACT
Amid the global pursuit of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the agricultural sector is evolving from a traditional food supplier into a key driver for climate resilience and ecological sustainability. Drawing on the comparative experiences from Japan, the Netherlands, Australia, and Thailand, this study identifies three models of agricultural net-zero governance: the government-led system-regulatory model, the market-oriented market-driven model, and the inclusivity-focused eco-developmental model. The analysis reveals that Taiwan’s agricultural landscape embodies a dual structure, characterized by highly intensive farming in the west and ecologically diverse systems in the east, rendering a single governance pathway inadequate. To address this, the paper proposes a zonal management strategy: western Taiwan should prioritize low-carbon technologies and circular resource utilization, while eastern Taiwan should focus on developing carbon sequestration markets and ecosystem service/ mechanism. In addition, the study introduces a comprehensive performance evaluation framework built around four pillars—mitigation, sequestration, circularity, and green trends—to transcend the limitations of conventional emission-centric assessments. Ultimately, this research provides a policy blueprint for Taiwan that seeks to harmonize decarbonization, resilience, and just transition, while offering strategic insights for other Asia-Pacific countries confronting similar environmental challenges.
Keywords: agricultural net-zero transition, zonal management strategy, performance evaluation framework, net-zero governance models, climate resilience
INTRODUCTION
Global efforts to address climate change have entered a new and increasingly challenging stage. Although the goal of “net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” has gained broad international consensus, a significant gap persists between policy commitments and actual implementation (OECD, 2024). The OECD’s recent policy brief Fast-tracking Net Zero by Building Climate and Economic Resilience further emphasizes that accelerated action in the coming years will be critical to meeting the Paris Agreement’s temperature control targets. Such acceleration entails not only the rapid diffusion and deployment of low-carbon technologies but also the capacity of governments to design coherent and synergistic policy packages that advance decarbonization while simultaneously strengthening climate and economic resilience (OECD, 2025).
In the agricultural sector, pathways for systemic transformation are becoming increasingly clear. Rosa and Gabrielli (2023) demonstrate that global agricultural mitigation encompasses a diverse set of technological options, including on-farm energy decarbonization, improvements in nitrogen fertilizer efficiency, alternative rice cultivation systems, and enhanced soil carbon sequestration. Yet, they also stress that technological options alone are insufficient to overcome disparities across countries in terms of economic costs, social acceptance, and governance capacity—a view that resonates with the OECD’s concern that policy design must be context-specific (OECD, 2024). Within this context, Taiwan’s agricultural transition toward net-zero presents a unique challenge. Its agricultural landscape is characterized by a distinct dual structure: the western plains are dominated by small-scale but highly intensive farming systems, facing environmental pressures and resource constraints similar to those of Japan and the Netherlands; by contrast, the eastern regions and mountainous areas possess rich ecological resources, offering significant potential for nature-based solutions akin to those pursued in Australia and Thailand. This complexity implies that Taiwan cannot directly replicate the experience of any single country, but instead must seek an integrated pathway tailored to its local conditions.
To address this challenge, this study raises a central question: in light of diverse international experiences, how can Taiwan design an optimal policy package that both accelerates the transition and ensures resilience? To answer this question, we adopt a comparative case study approach, examining the net-zero pathways of four representative countries—Japan, the Netherlands, Australia, and Thailand—and distilling them into three governance models: the system-regulatory model represented by Japan and the Netherlands, the market-driven model of Australia, and the eco-developmental model of Thailand. The objective of this study is to use these comparative insights to propose a net-zero strategy appropriate to Taiwan’s national context and to establish a multidimensional evaluation framework that can assess its effectiveness, thereby offering a concrete and actionable policy blueprint for Taiwan as well as other Asia-Pacific countries facing similar challenges.
EXPLANATION OF THE NET-ZERO MODELS OF FOUR COUNTRIES
There is no universally applicable single pathway for achieving agricultural net-zero transitions. Countries have developed distinctive approaches shaped by differences in resource endowments, industrial structures, environmental pressures, and governance capacities (OECD, 2024). Based on a comparative analysis of four countries, this study categorizes these governance approaches into three representative models: the system-regulatory model, the market-driven model, and the eco-developmental model. Each of these models embodies unique characteristics in terms of governance logic, technological portfolios, and supply-chain integration. Collectively, they provide valuable lessons for Taiwan in identifying the most suitable pathway toward agricultural net-zero. The details of these models are elaborated as follows:
System-regulatory model
The system-regulatory model is primarily applied in countries with limited land area, dense populations, highly intensive agriculture, and substantial endogenous environmental pressures, such as Japan and the Netherlands. The defining feature of this model lies in the government’s role as a strong planner and regulator, exercising top-down design and strict regulation to optimize and restructure the agricultural system in a highly systematic manner.
In terms of governance logic, this model is problem-oriented, establishing legally binding emission caps that directly target the most urgent environmental challenges. For example, the Netherlands introduced stringent emission regulations to address the “nitrogen crisis” (Erbach & Dewulf, 2024). To achieve such targets, governments devise detailed national strategies, such as Japan’s Green Food System Strategy (known in Japanese as MIDORI), which translates a 2050 long-term vision into concrete key performance indicators (KPIs), ranging from fertilizer and pesticide reduction to the expansion of organic farming areas (MAFF, 2021). To ensure the continuity of this strategy, the Japanese government subsequently enacted the Green Food System Act, providing a legal foundation and policy Incentives for related mitigation and sustainability measures (MAFF, 2022).
With respect to technological portfolios, this model relies heavily on innovation to decouple production efficiency from environmental impacts. Its policy mix encompasses a range of advanced mitigation technologies, with particular emphasis on: (1) sustainable nitrogen management, such as the Netherlands’ promotion of low-emission livestock housing and manure-separation technologies to reduce ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions at the source (Kros et al., 2024); (2) energy decarbonization in controlled-environment agriculture, exemplified by the Dutch greenhouse horticulture sector’s adoption of geothermal energy, industrial waste heat, and full electrification to reduce fossil fuel dependency (Burgering, 2024; McKinsey & Company, 2023); and (3) methane reduction in livestock systems, such as the Netherlands’ evaluation and deployment of innovative feed additives like Bovaer® (dsm-firmenich, 2024). Japan, by contrast, has emphasized systemic field management, including intermittent drainage in rice paddies to reduce methane emissions (Fuhrmann-Aoyagi et al., 2024), and has integrated such methodologies into its J-Credit carbon credit mechanism, thereby creating economic incentives for farmers to adopt emission-reducing practices (MAFF, 2023).
The strengths of this model lie in its clarity of objectives and high implementation efficiency, making it effective in addressing urgent environmental crises. However, its challenges are equally significant. As noted by the OECD (2024; 2025), if the distributional impacts of transition are not adequately managed, highly stringent regulatory measures may impose severe burdens on farmers’ livelihoods, generating social resistance and delaying progress. The success of the system-regulatory model therefore hinges on governments’ capacity for effective communication, as well as their ability to design and implement accompanying measures that ensure a just transition and maintain the social acceptability of policies.
Market-driven model
Australia provides a typical example of the market-driven model, characterized by vast land areas, a highly export-oriented agricultural sector, and a strong degree of industry autonomy. In this model, the government shifts from acting as a “direct regulator” to assuming the role of “market architect” and “rule-setter.” Its core logic lies in the design of market mechanisms that monetize ecological benefits—such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation—that were previously difficult to price, thereby incentivizing land managers to voluntarily engage in mitigation and sequestration activities.
The cornerstone of this model is Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) and the Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCU) system. These programs establish scientifically validated methodologies for agricultural activities such as soil carbon sequestration, reforestation, avoided deforestation, and feed additive-based methane reduction, enabling their mitigation outcomes to be converted into tradable carbon credits (Wood et al., 2021; SJT Consulting & RepuTex Energy, 2023). Within this framework, farmers and land managers are not merely food producers but also providers of climate solutions. This approach has also reinforced industry autonomy; for instance, Australia’s red meat sector voluntarily adopted the “Carbon Neutral by 2030 (CN30)” target and developed a comprehensive strategy encompassing technological innovation, supply-chain management, and market engagement (Meat & Livestock Australia, 2020).
The key strength of this model lies in its ability to leverage relatively limited government expenditure to mobilize large-scale private investment and drive land-use transitions, thereby generating new opportunities for rural economic growth (Ernst & Young, 2021). Nevertheless, the model faces several challenges, including stringent requirements for the accuracy of measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) methodologies, as well as uncertainties arising from carbon market price volatility. Moreover, verifying the authenticity and additionality of mitigation outcomes, while preventing misleading environmental claims, continues to pose significant institutional challenges (Milne et al., 2024).
Eco-developmental model
The eco-developmental model is commonly observed in developing countries, where smallholder farmers and nations dominate agriculture face multiple simultaneous pressures from climate change, food security, and rural development. Thailand serves as a representative example of this model. Its core governance logic does not treat net-zero as a stand-alone environmental target; rather, it integrates climate objectives into the broader national sustainable development agenda, exemplified by Thailand’s Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) Economy Model. The central policy focus is on transforming climate action into opportunities to strengthen smallholder resilience, promote industrial upgrading, and generate green growth (Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2022).
In practice, this model emphasizes enhancing the climate and economic resilience of smallholders to address constraints related to finance, technology, and market access. One illustrative example is the Rice NAMA Project, jointly implemented by the Thai government and international partners. The initiative aimed to engage 100,000 rice farmers by promoting a low-cost and user-friendly package of integrated technologies, with Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) irrigation as a key measure. AWD enables significant reductions in water use and methane emissions while maintaining yields (Dharma, 2021; Sriphirom & Rossopa, 2023). In addition, the government has promoted the resource utilization of livestock waste, such as encouraging farmers to install small-scale biogas digesters that convert manure into renewable energy and organic fertilizer (Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2022).
The strengths of this model lie in its emphasis on social inclusiveness and climate resilience, ensuring that the needs of vulnerable groups are addressed during the transition. However, its primary challenges stem from a heavy reliance on international finance and technical assistance, while domestic constraints—including infrastructure conditions and farmers’ educational levels—may hinder progress. As such, the model requires long-term and stable policy support as well as sustained capacity building (United Nations Food Systems Coordination Hub & FAO, 2025).
NET-ZERO STRATEGIES FOR TAIWAN
The preceding international comparison demonstrates that there is no single optimal pathway for agricultural net-zero transitions. The success of each country lies in selecting a model aligned with its specific national conditions, industrial structure, and governance capacity. Taiwan’s agriculture is characterized by a dual structure of intensive smallholder farming and highly diverse ecosystems, indicating that directly replicating any single model would be inappropriate. Consequently, Taiwan’s optimal pathway should be a context-specific multi-dimensional integration, combining the advantages of different models to respond to the OECD’s (2025) call for “accelerating net zero while simultaneously ensuring economic resilience and just transition.”
Taiwan’s strategic challenges stem from the intrinsic contrasts within its agricultural geography. On the one hand, the western plains are dominated by highly intensive farming systems, facing land and environmental pressures similar to those of Japan and the Netherlands, and thus requiring technological innovation and systemic optimization to enhance efficiency and reduce ecological footprints. On the other hand, the eastern and mountainous regions are endowed with rich forests, marine resources, and biodiversity, constituting Taiwan’s critical “natural capital.” These areas hold significant potential for carbon sequestration and the development of ecosystem services, resembling the contexts of Australia and Thailand.
Accordingly, Taiwan’s most suitable strategy should consist of a diversified pathway tailored to local conditions, with the core aim of reconciling intensive production with ecological values. This implies that policy instruments should not rely on a uniform approach but rather incorporate regional differentiation and flexibility, introducing varied governance logics and incentive mechanisms according to local contexts, thereby transforming potentially conflicting objectives into complementary policy portfolios. Based on these principles, this study recommends that Taiwan’s net-zero strategy be advanced through the concept of zonal management:
Western Intensive Agricultural Zone
It is recommended that the western region adopt a system-management approach, with policy priorities focused on improving production efficiency, reducing emissions, and promoting circular resource use. Drawing on the experiences of Japan and the Netherlands, priority could be given to advancing the “high-impact technology clusters” defined by IDH & Intellecap (2023). Specific directions include:
Eastern Ecological Zone
It is recommended that the eastern region adopt a combination of market-driven and eco-developmental approaches, with policy focus being placed on enhancing carbon sequestration and strengthening resilience. The overarching goal is to transform ecological conservation practices into sustainable income streams for farmers, thereby achieving multiple benefits of environmental protection, carbon sequestration enhancement, and farmer income growth. Based on the experiences of Australia and Thailand, possible directions include:
Challenges of Implementing Zonal Management
The greatest challenge in realizing net-zero strategies under a zonal management framework lies in cross-sectoral coordination and integration. Issues such as the spatial allocation of agrivoltaics, the distribution of water resources between agriculture and industry, and the regulation and verification of carbon markets cannot be resolved by the agricultural sector alone. Thus, a higher-level inter-ministerial coordination mechanism is required to ensure consistency of policy direction and effective resource integration, thereby advancing a whole-of-government approach to net-zero governance.
To effectively guide and assess the outcomes of agricultural net-zero transition, the establishment of a clear and comprehensive performance evaluation framework is essential. However, most existing indicator systems in other countries remain closely tied to conventional greenhouse gas inventory standards, with excessive emphasis on accounting for “total emissions.” While such an approach provides a necessary baseline, it is limited in several respects: it cannot distinguish whether mitigation results stem from technological efficiency gains or from simple contraction of sectoral scale, nor can it adequately reflect the broader socio-economic and ecological impacts of net-zero transitions.
COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Frontline policy discussions have increasingly emphasized that the net-zero transition is far more than a matter of carbon reduction alone. The OECD (2025) report underscores that a successful transition must simultaneously build economic resilience and social well-being. With the deep integration of global supply chains, focusing solely on direct production-side emissions is no longer sufficient, as upstream and downstream “hidden emissions” (Scope 3) often account for an even larger share, posing major obstacles to carbon neutrality for both enterprises and nations (UNEP FI, 2024). These trends collectively indicate the need for an evaluation framework that goes beyond conventional carbon accounting—one that can capture the quality rather than merely the quantity of net-zero transitions.
To address this challenge, and being informed by the practical experiences of the three international models as well as Taiwan’s agricultural policy framework, this study proposes a comprehensive performance evaluation system structured around four pillars: mitigation, sequestration, circularity, and green trends (see Table 1). Building upon existing greenhouse gas inventory baselines, this framework incorporates additional indicators of efficiency, ecology, and resilience, thereby providing Taiwan and other countries with a more holistic and forward-looking assessment tool. The advantage of this framework lies in its flexibility to be applied in complex contexts such as Taiwan’s, offering differentiated evaluation instruments tailored to the objectives of zonal management. To further illustrate its application, the following section examines its relevance under distinct regional contexts.
For the western intensive agricultural zone, characterized by institutionalized management, policy outcomes can primarily be evaluated through efficiency-oriented indicators under the pillars of mitigation and circularity (Indicators 1.2 and 3.2). These indicators provide insights into whether technological upgrades in western agriculture are achieving reductions in the environmental footprint per unit of output while maintaining high levels of productivity.
For the eastern region, where market-oriented and eco-developmental logics prevail, transition outcomes are most evident in the sequestration pillar, particularly the potential indicators (Indicator 2.2). These indicators assess whether eastern Taiwan’s sustainable development models effectively convert ecological value into quantifiable carbon assets and direct income streams for farmers.
At the national level, the total emission indicator under the mitigation pillar (Indicator 1.1) and the resilience indicator under the green trends pillar (Indicator 4.2) serve as cross-regional benchmarks. These ensure that the differentiated zonal strategies ultimately contribute to the overarching national goals of emission reduction and resilience enhancement.
Table 1. Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Framework for Agricultural Net-Zero Transition
Core pillar
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Unit of measurement
Indicator type
Policy implications & international reference
1. Mitigation
1.1 Net GHG emissions from the agricultural sector
ton CO₂e / year
Baseline total
Inventory and target attainment: directly linked to national NDC commitments.
1.2 Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) of key commodities
kg CO₂e / kg product
Efficiency indicator
Measures supply chain decoupling: referencing experiences from the Netherlands and Australia, responds to green trade requirements.
2. Sequestration
2.1 Net forest carbon removals
ton CO₂e / year
Baseline total
National carbon sink accounting: evaluates forestry contributions to negative emissions.
2.2 Soil / marine carbon sequestration potential
ton C / ha / year (rate) or area (ha) & health status (potential)
Potential indicator
Quantifies natural capital: referencing experiences from Japan and Australia, provides the foundation for carbon credit and ecosystem service markets.
3. Circularity
3.1 Reuse rate of agricultural residual resources
% (by weight or energy)
Action indicator
Evaluates waste-to-resource effectiveness: linked with circular economy policies.
3.2 Nutrient (N, P) cycling efficiency of agricultural systems
% (input-output ratio)
Efficiency indicator
Measures resource efficiency of systems: referencing the Netherlands, integrates mitigation with water pollution control objectives.
4. Green trends
4.1 Share of renewable energy in agriculture
% (of total agricultural electricity use)
Transition indicator
Assesses energy transition contribution: referencing Japan, evaluates the shift from agriculture as an energy consumer to an energy producer.
4.2 Agricultural climate resilience economic indicator
Disaster losses as % of agricultural GDP
Resilience indicator
Evaluates adaptation effectiveness: referencing Thailand’s policy priorities, quantifies the economic resilience of agricultural systems to climate risks.
Source: Tables compiled from this study.
The framework proposed in this study is not designed in isolation but is intended to align with existing policy monitoring systems. Many of its core indicators already have a robust data foundation for application. For instance, the indicator “Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Potential” (2.2) can be estimated based on long-term tracking data of action indicators such as the area under organic farming and green manure promotion; similarly, the assessment of “Nutrient Cycling Efficiency of Agricultural Systems” (3.2) can be derived by integrating existing data on the reuse of agricultural residual resources. This design enhances both the feasibility and verifiability of the framework in practice. Moreover, it enables the transformation of fragmented “action indicators” into systematic “performance indicators” that better capture actual outcomes, thereby compensating for the limitations of conventional systems. More broadly, the introduction of a comprehensive performance framework extends net-zero governance tools beyond a narrow focus on emission inventories, toward a comprehensive monitoring architecture capable of reflecting the quality and progress of transitions, thereby strengthening the assessment of comprehensiveness, robustness, and sustainability along the net-zero pathway.
CONCLUSION
Amid the global momentum toward net-zero emissions, the agricultural sector is evolving from a traditional food supplier into a central pillar of national climate resilience, ecological health, and economic sustainability. This study sought to identify an optimal transition pathway for Taiwan within this global context. Through a comparative analysis of four representative countries—Japan, the Netherlands, Australia, and Thailand—this paper demonstrates that there is no universally applicable model for agricultural net-zero transitions. Instead, each country must craft context-specific policy packages that reflect its own conditions. For Taiwan, whose agriculture is characterized by both highly intensive systems in the west and ecologically rich landscapes in the east, the most suitable pathway is not the replication of a single model but the adoption of a zonal management approach. In this strategy, the western region prioritizes efficiency improvements and circular economy practices, while the eastern region emphasizes carbon sequestration potential and the conversion of ecosystem services into drivers of local sustainability. This dual pathway aligns with the OECD’s (2025) emphasis on achieving net-zero in tandem with economic resilience and just transition.
Furthermore, this study introduces a multidimensional performance evaluation framework that goes beyond conventional greenhouse gas inventories by incorporating indicators of efficiency intensity, sequestration contributions, system resilience, and circular benefits. This framework transforms net-zero governance from a narrow focus on outcome inventories into a monitoring architecture capable of capturing transition quality and multiple co-benefits, thereby providing a more precise basis for policy adjustment.
In sum, agricultural net-zero transition is a systemic endeavor that requires not only technological innovation but also adaptive governance and social inclusiveness. The zonal management strategy and comprehensive performance framework proposed herein represent Taiwan’s localized response to the global net-zero challenge. Looking ahead, grounding policies in robust data while balancing market incentives, regulatory frameworks, ecological resilience, and social equity will be essential to advancing Taiwan’s agriculture toward a low-carbon, sustainable, and competitive future.
REFERENCES
Burgering, C. (2024, October 24). Dutch agriculture not on track to meet climate targets. ABN AMRO Group Economics.
Dharma, A. W. (2021). Scoping study: Climate smart rice, country report – Thailand (Promoting global best practices and scaling of low emissions technologies by engaging the private and public sectors in the paddy rice sector). United Nations Environment Programme, Asia Pacific Office.
dsm-firmenich. (2024). Bovaer®: The proven solution to immediately reduce enteric methane from dairy and beef cattle [Brochure]. dsm-firmenich. https://www.dsm-firmenich.com/bovaer
Erbach, G., & Dewulf, N. (2024). The Netherlands' climate action strategy (PE 767.176). European Parliamentary Research Service.
Ernst & Young Australia. (2021, September 13). How can Australia’s agriculture sector realise opportunity in a low emissions future? Farmers for Climate Action.
Fuhrmann-Aoyagi, M. B., Miura, K., & Watanabe, K. (2024). Sustainability in Japan’s agriculture: An analysis of current approaches. Sustainability, 16(2), 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020596
IDH, & Intellecap. (2023). A net zero pathway for agri-food: Evidence from coffee and soy in Brazil. Utrecht: IDH; Mumbai: Intellecap.
Kros, H., Cals, T., Gies, E., Groenendijk, P., Lesschen, J. P., Voogd, J. C., Hermans, T., & Velthof, G. (2024). Region oriented and integrated approach to reduce emissions of nutrients and greenhouse gases from agriculture in the Netherlands. Science of The Total Environment, 909, 168501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168501
McKinsey & Company. (2023, November). From ambition to action: Decarbonization and beyond in the Netherlands. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/from-ambition-to-action-decarbonization-and-beyond-in-the-netherlands
Meat & Livestock Australia. (2020). The Australian red meat industry’s carbon neutral by 2030 roadmap. Meat & Livestock Australia. https://www.mla.com.au/CN30
Milne, S., Beaver, S., Baljak, C., Cox, A., & Howden, M. (2024). Carbon farming co-benefits: A review of concepts, policy and potential in Australian landscapes. The Rangeland Journal, 46, RJ24015. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ24015
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). (2021). Strategy for sustainable food systems “MeaDRI” (Summary). [In Japanese].
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). (2022). Green Food System Act. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/kanbo/kankyo/seisaku/midori/houritsu.html#houritsu
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). (2023). Results of the FY2022 Basic Survey Project on Farmland Soil Carbon Sequestration. [In Japanese].
OECD. (2024). Closing in on net zero: Background and issues explored in Phase Two of the Net Zero+ project (Net Zero+ Policy Papers No. 1). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/bbe55705-en
OECD. (2025). Fast-tracking net zero by building climate and economic resilience: A summary for policymakers. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f2c22c96-en
Rosa, L., & Gabrielli, P. (2023). Achieving net-zero emissions in agriculture: A review. Environmental Research Letters, 18(6), 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acd5e8
SJT Consulting, & RepuTex Energy. (2023). ACCU market analysis: Final report for publication. Australian Government, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
Sriphirom, P., & Rossopa, B. (2023). Assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation from rice cultivation using alternate wetting and drying and rice straw biochar in Thailand. Agricultural Water Management, 290, 108586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108586
Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2022). Thailand net zero 2050 roadmap. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance. (2024, December). Tackling hidden emissions for a net-zero transition: A discussion paper on Scope 3 integration. UNEP Finance Initiative; Principles for Responsible Investment. https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-alliance/
United Nations Food Systems Coordination Hub, & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2025). Convergence action blueprint: Thailand.