Though most people take food production more or less for granted, it is a critical front in all of the most pressing environmental issues of the day. Without more sustainable agricultural practices, humanity can look forward to a future of runaway climate change, ecological destruction, and food insecurity.
NORWICH – There is unequivocal evidence that most contemporary agricultural practices are unsustainable, and have been a significant source of terrestrial biodiversity loss in recent decades. But this need not be the case. Feeding the world and enhancing conservation are complementary – and even closely interdependent – goals.
Nature, after all, is an “asset” on which we all depend. But while most of its “provisioning” services have increased in the last 50 years, its “regulating” and “cultural” services are in decline, primarily as a result of unsustainable agricultural extensification (conversion of natural habitats) and intensification (the inappropriate use of water and chemical fertilizers and pesticides).
Far from being just a source of food, timber, and fiber (provisional services), natural systems also sustain the quality of air, fresh water, and soils; regulate the climate; facilitate pollination and pest control; and reduce the impact of natural hazards (regulatory services). And for communities around the world, nature is a critical source of inspiration, education, recreation, psychological wellbeing, and personal identity (cultural services).
These latter benefits have been eroded over the past 50 years. As populations and spending power have grown, so has global demand for food, fiber, and other provisional services. Since 1970, bioenergy production and the harvesting of materials have increased substantially, and agricultural crop production has grown approximately threefold, reaching an estimated $2.6 trillion in 2016. The upshot is that we have ruthlessly exploited the natural services that have market value – food, fiber, energy, and medicines – at the expense of those whose value is not expressed directly through price mechanisms.
Already, about 75% of the planet’s ice-free land area has been significantly altered, and that figure is projected to rise to 90% by 2050. Equally dire, around 85% of the world’s wetlands have been lost. This conversion and degradation of ecosystems threatens around one million of the world’s estimated eight million plant and animal species (including insects) with extinction.
Biodiversity loss threatens agriculture in a variety of ways. More than 75% of global food crop types – including some of the most important cash crops, such as coffee, cocoa, and almonds – rely on a diverse set of pollinators, which are in decline in most parts of the world. And food production more generally depends on the maintenance of soil fertility and water-retention capacity, not to mention genetic diversity, which is needed to withstand pests and diseases and to adapt to climate change.
Don’t go back to school without Project Syndicate! For a limited time, we’re offering PS Digital subscriptions for just $50.
Access every new PS commentary, our suite of subscriber-exclusive content, and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Moreover, land degradation has reduced agricultural productivity on 23% of the planet’s terrestrial surface area, resulting in economic losses as large as 10% of world GDP. This is already negatively affecting the wellbeing of 3.2 billion people, especially poor communities in poor countries. As productivity has declined, so has global food security. The more local varieties and breeds of domesticated plants and animals that disappear as a result of conversion and degradation, the less resilient those agricultural systems become.
Fortunately, nature and the services it provides can be conserved, restored, and used sustainably without having to sacrifice broader societal goals such as economic development. Food security and conservation can both be advanced through sustainable agriculture, aquaculture, and livestock systems, and through the restoration and protection of native species, varieties, breeds, and habitats.
For example, agroecological practices such as multifunctional landscape planning and cross-sectoral integrated management offer both economic and ecological benefits. One of the keys to integrated landscape planning and management is to use native species to offset degradation and protect biodiversity, which itself is necessary for resilience against future shocks to production.
Although climate change has not been the most important driver of biodiversity loss to date, that will change in the coming decades. Through its effects on temperature, precipitation, and pests, climate change will have a deeply adverse impact on agricultural production – which will need to be made all the more resilient, even as biodiversity loss makes it less so. By 2050, land degradation and climate change together are predicted to reduce crop yields by an average of 10% globally and up to 50% in certain regions.
Limiting climate change requires reducing greenhouse-gas emissions not only in the energy sector but also in agriculture itself. While rice and livestock production are major sources of methane, fertilizer use emits nitrous oxide, and the conversion of forests, grasslands, and mangroves eliminates carbon sinks.
Beyond the site of production, consumer behavior will be critical to transforming the food system. Changes in dietary habits in developed countries that reduced demand for animal products would greatly reduce pressure on ecosystems and the climate, not to mention those countries’ health systems.
Equally important is the problem of food waste in restaurants and homes. Here, raising awareness and changing consumer behavior may require policies that impose costs on retailers and food manufacturers who deliver more than required. Additional actions to advance the causes of both food security and conservation could include eliminating harmful agricultural production subsidies, which are a major contributor to environmental degradation, and expanding storage and transportation infrastructure, to limit post-harvest losses.
A final concern is the effect of agriculture in coastal zones. The excessive or inappropriate use of fertilizer produces runoff that ends up in freshwater and coastal ecosystems, and this practice has created more than 400 hypoxic zones, affecting a total area of more than 245,000 square kilometers (96.5 thousand square miles). Meanwhile, ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and over-fishing are depleting fish stocks in most of the ocean. Here, sustainable food production requires better fisheries management, spatial planning (including the implementation and expansion of marine protected areas), and policies to address the sources of climate change and pollution.
Environmental changes and current agricultural practices pose risks both to food production and to biodiversity, which itself is necessary for long-term food security. Fortunately, by building more sustainable food systems and working with nature, we can simultaneously minimize adverse environmental effects, eliminate hunger, and contribute to public health. Options for transforming our current unsustainable agricultural systems are already widely available; it’s time we pay them their due.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
NORWICH – There is unequivocal evidence that most contemporary agricultural practices are unsustainable, and have been a significant source of terrestrial biodiversity loss in recent decades. But this need not be the case. Feeding the world and enhancing conservation are complementary – and even closely interdependent – goals.
Nature, after all, is an “asset” on which we all depend. But while most of its “provisioning” services have increased in the last 50 years, its “regulating” and “cultural” services are in decline, primarily as a result of unsustainable agricultural extensification (conversion of natural habitats) and intensification (the inappropriate use of water and chemical fertilizers and pesticides).
Far from being just a source of food, timber, and fiber (provisional services), natural systems also sustain the quality of air, fresh water, and soils; regulate the climate; facilitate pollination and pest control; and reduce the impact of natural hazards (regulatory services). And for communities around the world, nature is a critical source of inspiration, education, recreation, psychological wellbeing, and personal identity (cultural services).
These latter benefits have been eroded over the past 50 years. As populations and spending power have grown, so has global demand for food, fiber, and other provisional services. Since 1970, bioenergy production and the harvesting of materials have increased substantially, and agricultural crop production has grown approximately threefold, reaching an estimated $2.6 trillion in 2016. The upshot is that we have ruthlessly exploited the natural services that have market value – food, fiber, energy, and medicines – at the expense of those whose value is not expressed directly through price mechanisms.
Already, about 75% of the planet’s ice-free land area has been significantly altered, and that figure is projected to rise to 90% by 2050. Equally dire, around 85% of the world’s wetlands have been lost. This conversion and degradation of ecosystems threatens around one million of the world’s estimated eight million plant and animal species (including insects) with extinction.
Biodiversity loss threatens agriculture in a variety of ways. More than 75% of global food crop types – including some of the most important cash crops, such as coffee, cocoa, and almonds – rely on a diverse set of pollinators, which are in decline in most parts of the world. And food production more generally depends on the maintenance of soil fertility and water-retention capacity, not to mention genetic diversity, which is needed to withstand pests and diseases and to adapt to climate change.
Don’t go back to school without Project Syndicate! For a limited time, we’re offering PS Digital subscriptions for just $50.
Access every new PS commentary, our suite of subscriber-exclusive content, and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Moreover, land degradation has reduced agricultural productivity on 23% of the planet’s terrestrial surface area, resulting in economic losses as large as 10% of world GDP. This is already negatively affecting the wellbeing of 3.2 billion people, especially poor communities in poor countries. As productivity has declined, so has global food security. The more local varieties and breeds of domesticated plants and animals that disappear as a result of conversion and degradation, the less resilient those agricultural systems become.
Fortunately, nature and the services it provides can be conserved, restored, and used sustainably without having to sacrifice broader societal goals such as economic development. Food security and conservation can both be advanced through sustainable agriculture, aquaculture, and livestock systems, and through the restoration and protection of native species, varieties, breeds, and habitats.
For example, agroecological practices such as multifunctional landscape planning and cross-sectoral integrated management offer both economic and ecological benefits. One of the keys to integrated landscape planning and management is to use native species to offset degradation and protect biodiversity, which itself is necessary for resilience against future shocks to production.
Although climate change has not been the most important driver of biodiversity loss to date, that will change in the coming decades. Through its effects on temperature, precipitation, and pests, climate change will have a deeply adverse impact on agricultural production – which will need to be made all the more resilient, even as biodiversity loss makes it less so. By 2050, land degradation and climate change together are predicted to reduce crop yields by an average of 10% globally and up to 50% in certain regions.
Limiting climate change requires reducing greenhouse-gas emissions not only in the energy sector but also in agriculture itself. While rice and livestock production are major sources of methane, fertilizer use emits nitrous oxide, and the conversion of forests, grasslands, and mangroves eliminates carbon sinks.
Beyond the site of production, consumer behavior will be critical to transforming the food system. Changes in dietary habits in developed countries that reduced demand for animal products would greatly reduce pressure on ecosystems and the climate, not to mention those countries’ health systems.
Equally important is the problem of food waste in restaurants and homes. Here, raising awareness and changing consumer behavior may require policies that impose costs on retailers and food manufacturers who deliver more than required. Additional actions to advance the causes of both food security and conservation could include eliminating harmful agricultural production subsidies, which are a major contributor to environmental degradation, and expanding storage and transportation infrastructure, to limit post-harvest losses.
A final concern is the effect of agriculture in coastal zones. The excessive or inappropriate use of fertilizer produces runoff that ends up in freshwater and coastal ecosystems, and this practice has created more than 400 hypoxic zones, affecting a total area of more than 245,000 square kilometers (96.5 thousand square miles). Meanwhile, ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and over-fishing are depleting fish stocks in most of the ocean. Here, sustainable food production requires better fisheries management, spatial planning (including the implementation and expansion of marine protected areas), and policies to address the sources of climate change and pollution.
Environmental changes and current agricultural practices pose risks both to food production and to biodiversity, which itself is necessary for long-term food security. Fortunately, by building more sustainable food systems and working with nature, we can simultaneously minimize adverse environmental effects, eliminate hunger, and contribute to public health. Options for transforming our current unsustainable agricultural systems are already widely available; it’s time we pay them their due.