This publication is the abridged version of the report ‘Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture: recommendations for philanthropy’. The report was designed to identify greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation options in the agricultural sector. It provides a snapshot of the global mitigation potential in the year 2030, compared to a hypothetical baseline in which no additional mitigation from agriculture is attempted, beyond current adoption and intensification trends. The analysis is intended to enhance understanding of the relative magnitude and feasibility of mitigation opportunities. The agriculture sector accounts for approximately one-fifth of GHG emissions when considering the full life cycle of production, including deforestation. This ratio can be higher in developing countries where agriculture and forestry sectors together often constitute the majority of total emissions. Despite this, climate negotiators and policy makers have historically paid little attention to the agricultural sector in efforts to slow climate change. According to the authors of this publication, constructive debate on agriculture and climate change is hampered by a false dichotomy between food security and environmental health. Furthermore, fears about mitigation practices reducing yields may be inhibiting the integration of the food security and livelihoods agenda with that of the climate and environmental community. This publication provides a series of recommendations that focus on GHG mitigation options while also supporting the food security and climate resiliency needs: 1. Shift consumption patterns. This report estimates that nearly three gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (Gt CO2e) per year could be mitigated through changes in diets and reductions in food waste in 2030 compared with a business-as-usual scenario. It is important to address rising meat consumption, particularly beef. Among other promising interventions are reducing levels of food waste and loss around the world, and curtailing the use of food crops for biofuels. A range of actions – including policy changes, behavioural change, and infrastructure investments – can help address these issues. 2. Focus on key agricultural producers that can achieve major productivity gains. Demand-side interventions need to be paired with efforts to improve the efficiency of production. Priority focus areas should include: reducing enteric fermentation emissions from Brazil’s cattle population and India’s dairy herd; increasing the efficiency of nutrient use on China’s croplands; reducing rice emissions in Southeast Asia; and improving stored manure practices in industrialised livestock systems. 3. Pursue catalytic, cross-cutting interventions. There are several high leverage opportunities that are gaining traction and should be examined in more detail: standards and guidelines for low emissions agricultural investments that steer money away from high emissions agricultural activities; greater transparency and accountability in corporate supply chains would strengthen the climate-oriented investments and commitments of major food and agribusinesses; and reform of agricultural subsidies in major agricultural economies, particularly the E.U. and U.S. 4. Take a rational approach to agricultural carbon sequestration. One way to prioritise support for increased soil carbon sequestration is to identify those geographies where soil carbon content is particularly low and where the links to food security, poverty reduction, and productivity gains are strongest. The croplands of Sub-Saharan Africa and the grazing lands of Brazil are two geographies where carbon sequestration would support broader efforts to improve soil fertility and forage productivity, for the long-term benefit of producers. Additionally, this report recommends continued, long-term investments in research and development of promising new practices, specifically biochar, as well as improved data on soil types, soil carbon contents and fluxes, specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa.