Figure - available from: Sustainability Science
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
National trade profiles of the 25 largest contributors to the global production and consumption of cropland areas for 2012. Values are in million hectares of cropland area harvested. Numbers show “export” (next to the green bar), “local” (in the middle), and “import” (next to the red bar). The values for total production and consumption are not shown for visualization reasons, but can be calculated as “export” + ”local” (for production), or “local” + “import” (for consumption), respectively (see also Fig. 2). The black line is centered through the middle of the brown bar, helping to visualize whether a country is a net exporter (green bar is bigger than the red, the sum is left-heavy) or a net importer (red bar bigger than green, right-heavy)
Source publication
Agricultural expansion and intensification are threatening biodiversity worldwide, and future expansion of agricultural land will exacerbate this trend. One of the main drivers of this expansion is an increasingly global trade of agricultural produce. National and international assessments tracking the impact of agriculture on biodiversity thus nee...
Citations
... Green (2019) assessed the impact of soy using state of the art provenance modelling and a pre-cursor to the more comprehensive metric used in this paper (Duran, 2020), but the study was limited to the Brazilian Cerrado. Schwarzmueller (2022) linked consumption to production impacts via trade and the Species Habitat Index (CBD Secretariat, 2021), but because this uses a year-2000 baseline, only capturing historic damage rather than ongoing impacts and the potential for restoration. Scarborough (2023) links biodiversity and other outcomes on a commodity-specific basis but forgoes any element of spatiality and hence is unable to capture provenance as a lever for mitigation. ...
... The marginal impact of current food consumption on biodiversity can be viewed as the forgone opportunity to restore biodiversity arising through ongoing agricultural land use. By linking LIFE with spatial crop and pasture distributions (FAO & IIASA, 2024;Klein-Goldewijk, 2017), consumption, production, and trade data (FAO, 2024), and the provenance modelling approach taken by Schwarzmueller et al. (2022), we therefore quantify the opportunity cost to biodiversity of producing or consuming one kilogram of each FAO-aligned food commodity in 174 countries, taking the feed and grazing requirements for animal products into account. We elected to use FAO data, in which post-production food waste and on-farm losses are embedded in consumption and production data respectively. ...
... This means that, for example, if country a produces 100 bananas, and country b produces 3 bananas, the weighted median (50 th percentile) impact of bananas would be much closer to that of a than of b. To calculate the consumptionside impacts of countries, we use the method described by Schwarzmueller (2022) to estimate the provenance portfolio of commodities consumed within each country, the distribution of which we use to weight the previously calculated impact values for that commodity in that country. See the supplementary information for more detail on these calculations. ...
Agriculturally-driven habitat degradation and destruction is the biggest threat to global biodiversity, yet the impacts on extinctions of different types of food and where they are produced and the mitigation potential of different interventions remain poorly quantified. Here we link the LIFE biodiversity metric – a high-resolution global layer describing the marginal impact of land-use on extinctions of ~30K vertebrate species – with food consumption and production data and provenance modelling. Using an opportunity-cost framing we discover that the impact of what we eat on species extinctions varies widely both across and within foods, in many cases by more than an order of magnitude. Despite marked differences in per-capita impacts across countries, there are consistent patterns that could be leveraged for mitigating harm to biodiversity. We anticipate the approach and results outlined here could inform decision-making across many levels, from national policies to individual dietary choices.
... The marginal impact of current food consumption on biodiversity can be viewed as the forgone opportunity to restore biodiversity arising through ongoing agricultural land use. By linking LIFE with spatial crop and pasture distributions (FAO & IIASA, 2024; Klein-Goldewijk, 2017), consumption, production, and trade data , and the provenance modelling approach taken by Schwarzmueller et al. (2022), we therefore quantify the opportunity cost to biodiversity of producing or consuming one kilogram of each FAO-aligned food commodity in 174 countries, taking the feed and grazing requirements for animal products into account. We elected to use FAO data, in which post-production food waste and on-farm losses are embedded in consumption and production data respectively. ...
... This means that, for example, if country a produces 100 bananas, and country b produces 3 bananas, the weighted median (50th percentile) impact of bananas would be much closer to that of a than of b. To calculate the consumption-side impacts of countries, we use the method described by Schwarzmueller (2022) to estimate the provenance portfolio of commodities consumed within each country, the distribution of which we use to weight the previously calculated impact values for that commodity in that country. See the supplementary information for more detail on these calculations. ...
Agriculturally-driven habitat degradation and destruction is the biggest threat to global biodiversity, yet the impacts on extinctions of different types of food and where they are produced and the mitigation potential of different interventions remain poorly quantified. Here we link the LIFE biodiversity metric – a high-resolution global layer describing the marginal impact of land-use on extinctions of ~30K vertebrate species – with food consumption and production data and provenance modelling. Using an opportunity-cost framing we discover that the impact of what we eat on species extinctions varies widely both across and within foods, in many cases by more than an order of magnitude. Despite marked differences in per-capita impacts across countries, there are consistent patterns that could be leveraged for mitigating harm to biodiversity. We anticipate the approach and results outlined here could inform decision-making across many levels, from national policies to individual dietary choices.
... Olive oil 0% Pork 82% Rapeseed and rapeseed oil 2 50% Poultry 73% Butter 62% Lamb 28% 1 Sweden is a net-exporter of cereals, however cereals are also imported, such as durum wheat for pasta production. 2 Including imports for biofuels. 3 Schwarzmueller and Kastner (2022). 4 Mainly for feed. ...
... 4 Mainly for feed. 5 There is a growing production of common beans in Sweden (Från Sverige, 2022), however this did not show in the 2013 data in Schwarzmueller and Kastner (2022). ...
... With the emergence of global sustainability goals that include biodiversity and the continued evolution of global food markets and consumer demands (Schwarzmueller & Kastner, 2022), it is expected that biodiversity will be increasingly incorporated into agricultural management frameworks for export markets (Dalin & Outhwaite, 2019). Indeed, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022, specifies this as a target for urgent action over the decade to 2030 (Target 15): legal, administrative or policy measures … to ensure that large and transnational companies …: Regularly monitor, assess, and transparently disclose their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity, including with requirements 5. We develop an extensive set of resources for ongoing dissemination, including an online sustainability metric to report the practices carried out. ...
Agricultural intensification and expansion are the main drivers of biodiversity loss that continue to increase this century, especially in South America. International markets and global policy provide incentives and frameworks to address this, but these are unlikely to be effective unless farmers on the ground are enabled and motivated to respond to them by developing long‐term solutions that fit their production systems and local contexts.
Here, we use a multi‐actor transdisciplinary approach to co‐design and test agroecological innovations suitable for intensive, exporting South American fruit farms. We focus on highly biodiverse regions experiencing habitat loss in the Mediterranean and dry tropical forest regions of Chile and Brazil, respectively. The innovations were designed to support local biodiversity without compromising productivity or quality.
Fourteen farmers participated throughout the project, covering a total of 4178 ha of intensive table grape, mango and cherry production. All were under pressure from buyers to report action on biodiversity.
Farmers worked with researchers and industry representatives through an iterative process of dialogues and workshops to select, co‐design and implement three agroecological innovations: perches for birds of prey, cover crops and native hedgerows. Farmers became engaged in monitoring their effectiveness and redesigning them to suit local contexts.
We develop an extensive set of resources for ongoing dissemination, including an online sustainability metric to report the practices carried out. Eight farms continued to implement at least one agroecological innovation beyond the end of the project, motivated by its fit to their management system and their ability to report positive actions in their supply chains.
Policy implications . Our model of knowledge co‐production demonstrates how transdisciplinary research in agriculture, fully localised in a particular food‐producing context, can enable farmers in the global South to engage with biodiversity conservation in response to top‐down market signals incentivising sustainability. We argue that many top‐down efforts to enhance the sustainability of food supply chains, whether through market incentives, voluntary codes or trade regulations, require locally based knowledge co‐production, in which multiple stakeholders from agriculture and the food industry can benefit from working with locally based researchers.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
... Then, we used additional data from the Food and Agriculture Organization commodity balances to calculate the flow of feed footprints embodied in the trade of animal products. Finally, we transformed the flows of primary products (in tonnes) into harvested area required for their production using annual and country-specific yield information of the producing country 11,38 . ...
... The model converts all products into primary crop equivalents. A detailed description can be found in the report by Schwarzmueller and Kastner 38 . ...
Food systems are the largest users of land and water resources worldwide. Using a multi-model approach to track food through the global trade network, we calculated the land footprint (LF) and water footprint (WF) of food consumption in the European Union (EU). We estimated the EU LF as 140–222 Mha yr⁻¹ and WF as 569–918 km³ yr⁻¹. These amounts are 5–7% of the global LF and 6–10% of the global WF of agriculture, with the EU representing 6% of the global population. We also calculated the global LF of livestock grazing, accounting only for grass eaten, to be 1,411–1,657 Mha yr⁻¹, and the global LF of agriculture to be 2,809–3,014 Mha yr⁻¹, which is about two-thirds of what the Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics (FAOSTAT) database reports. We discuss here the different methods for calculating the LF for livestock grazing, underscoring the need for a consistent methodology when monitoring the food LF and WF reduction goals set by the EU’s Farm To Fork Strategy.
... There is a significant contrast between the different concepts of agriculture. Intensified agriculture is the most common concept, which can be understood as productivity increases in the same cropland space [116,117]. Food production intensification is highly dependent on advances in agrochemical and genetic technologies, but causes soil and salinity degradation and soil sterility, causing the soil to no longer be viable for agricultural food production [118]. Nowadays, the development of new agro-technologies is fundamental to meeting the rising global demand for food products [119] and simultaneously increasing food production, with less environmental pressure [120]. ...
Focusing on new food production methods and sustainable pillars’ accomplishments has changed the definition of sustainable pillars themselves. Moreover, some general characteristics of the main pillars can be redefined in separate dimensions to better explain their positive sustainable impacts. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to redefine the sustainable pillars linked to food production and review the most important cultural and technological sustainability impacts they have, in addition to the three classic pillars: economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Cultural and technological sustainability are increasingly important complements to the traditional sustainability concept. Furthermore, new food production technologies and systems are influenced by ancient production methods, as well as by profitable crop selection. Traditional agricultural and aquaculture production in relation to more recent aquaponic production concepts are still a major part of global food security, but the better usage of waste materials or residues generates a more favorable agroecological impact. In conclusion, constantly redefining the sustainable pillars in the context of sustainable food production methods and proving the viability of their general production impacts is important.
... For example, conflict affects agricultural output and international trade [39]. with follow on influences for land use (namely agricultural expansion and intensification) at other distant locations [78,79]. ...
Trajectories of human conflict have direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem function. These occur across terrestrial, marine and freshwater systems via the well-established drivers of biodiversity loss; land and sea-use change, climate change, overexploitation, pollution and invasive species. However, the mechanisms underlying the nature of some of these connections are still poorly explored, as is the compilation of existing evidence. Furthermore, indirect drivers, spillover effects and synergistic relationships between drivers are additional knowledge gaps. Building a full picture requires exploring the magnitude and directionality of impacts within the wider context of socioeconomic change and geopolitics with which conflict is associated. As this knowledge advances, conflict in its diverse forms is likely to emerge as the most overlooked and significant indirect driver of biodiversity loss internationally. Additionally, as being our greatest challenge in achieving sustainable development, specifically due to the primacy of its influence on all other sustainability challenges.
... This strong concentration of impacts appears to be a feature that sets our results apart from many other environmental impacts that are more strongly aligned with cropland expansion, like deforestation and biodiversity impacts in the tropics (Pendrill et al., 2019;Chaudhary and Kastner, 2016;Schwarzmueller and Kastner, 2022). ...
In our globalized world, local impacts of agricultural production are increasingly driven by consumption in geographically distant places. Current agricultural systems strongly rely on nitrogen (N) fertilization to increase soil fertility and crop yields. Yet, a large portion of N added to cropland is lost through leaching / runoff potentially leading to eutrophication in coastal ecosystems. By coupling data on global production and N fertilization for 152 crops with a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-based model, we first estimated the extent of oxygen depletion occurring in 66 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) due to agricultural production in the watersheds draining into these LMEs. We then linked this information to crop trade data to assess the displacement from consuming to producing countries, in terms of oxygen depletion impacts associated to our food systems. In this way, we characterized how impacts are distributed between traded and domestically sourced agricultural products. We found that few countries dominate global impacts and that cereal and oil crop production accounts for the bulk of oxygen depletion impacts. Globally, 15.9 % of total oxygen depletion impacts of crop production are ascribable to export-driven production. However, for exporting countries like Canada, Argentina or Malaysia this share is much higher, often up to three-quarters of their production impacts. In some importing countries, trade contributes to reduce pressure on already highly affected coastal ecosystems. This is the case for countries whose domestic crop production is associated with high oxygen depletion intensities, i.e. the impact per kcal produced, such as Japan or South Korea. Next to these positive effects trade can play in lowering overall environmental burdens, our results also highlight the importance of a holistic food system perspective when aiming to reduce the oxygen depletion impacts of crop production.
... These telecoupled impacts have continued to increase, with 23.4 % of agricultural land used for export in 2013, representing a 17 % increase since 2000. This increase is almost entirely to support expanding footprints in high-income nations, in the absence of population growth in these importers or the restoration of land previously used for agriculture (Schwarzmueller and Kastner, 2022). Agriculture for international trade has been shown to disproportionately impact biodiversity (Kastner et al., 2021). ...
Human population (often treated as overpopulation) has long been blamed as the main cause of biodiversity loss. Whilst this simplistic explanation may seem convenient, understanding the accuracy of the statement is crucial to develop effective priorities and targets to manage and reverse ongoing biodiversity loss. If untrue, the assertion may undermine practical and effective measures currently underway to counter biodiversity loss by distracting from true drivers, alienating some of the most diverse countries in the world, and failing to tackle the structural inequalities which may be behind global biodiversity declines. Through examining the drivers of biodiversity loss in highly biodiverse countries, we show that it is not population driving the loss of habitats, but rather the growth of commodities for export, particularly soybean and oil-palm, primarily for livestock feed or biofuel consumption in higher income economies. Thus, inequitable consumption drives global biodiversity loss, whilst population is used to scapegoat responsibility. Instead, the responsibilities are clear and have recently been summarized by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPBES: Leverage points for biodiversity conservation lie in reducing unsustainable consumption through diet shifts, tracking supply chains, and technological innovation as well as ensuring sustainable production to reduce biodiversity losses associated with industrial agriculture.
... The trade of agricultural products, such as soybeans ( da Silva et al., 2017 ), natural rubber ( Laroche et al., 2022 ), and wood products ( Parish et al., 2018 ), are the most studied in the literature. The production and consumption of these agricultural products are usually linked to land use change ( Fuller et al., 2019 ), deforestation ( Norder et al., 2017 ), biodiversity ( Green et al., 2019 ;Schwarzmueller and Kastner, 2022 ), energy ( Kalt et al., 2021 ), water use ( Du et al., 2022 ), and other environmental footprints ( Barbieri et al., 2022 ;Galvan-Miyoshi et al., 2022 ). Research also revealed that some traded food products (e.g., red meat and processed meat) can lead to human health concerns ( Chung et al., 2021 ;Chung and Liu, 2019 ). ...
Complex sustainability issues in the Anthropocene, with rapid globalization and global environmental changes, are increasingly interlinked between not only nearby systems, but also distant systems. Tobler's first law of geography (TFL) states “near things are more related than distant things.” Evidence suggests that TFL is not infallible for sustainability issues. Recently, the integrated framework of metacoupling (human-nature interactions within as well as between adjacent and distant systems, MCF) has been applied to analyze the interactions between nearby and distant coupled human and natural systems simultaneously. However, previous work has been scattered and fragmented. It is crucial to understand the extent to which TFL and MCF apply across pressing issues in sustainability. Therefore, we reviewed and synthesized sustainability literature that had used TFL and MCF across seven major topics: land change, species migration, tourism, trade, agricultural development, conservation, and governance. Results indicate that the literature using MCF generally did not or likely did not obey TFL, especially in trade, governance, and agricultural development. In the TFL literature, most topics obeyed TFL, except for species migration and trade. The findings suggest the need to rethink and further test TFL's relevance to sustainability issues, and highlight the potential of MCF to address complex interactions between both adjacent and distant systems across the world for global sustainability.
