Explore the vast range of titles available.

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 need to be expanded by a consumption-based accounting of biodiversity loss. In this study, we use global trade data, provided by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), to construct national trade profiles for 223 countries, at the level of 191 produced items and over the timespan of 15 years. We show how bilateral trade data and a national biodiversity indicator, the Species Habitat Index (SHI), can be combined to quantify consumption-based impacts of agricultural trade on biodiversity. We found that the cropland area for agricultural trade has increased from 17 (in 2000) to 23.5% (in 2013) of the global total cropland area. Especially, countries in Western Europe, North America, and the Middle East, create a large part of their biodiversity footprint outside their own country borders, because they import large amounts of agricultural products from areas where the SHI records high biodiversity loss. With our approach, we can thus identify countries where consumption-based interventions might be most effective for the protection of global biodiversity. Analyses like the one presented in this study are needed to complement territorial sustainability assessments. By taking into account trade and consumption, they can inform cross-border agreements on biodiversity protection.

While many developed countries are increasing their forest cover, deforestation is still rife in the tropics and subtropics. With international trade in forest-risk commodities on the rise, it is becoming increasingly important to consider between-country trade linkages in assessing the drivers of-and possible connections between-forest loss and gain across countries. Previous studies have shown that countries that have undergone a forest transition (and are now increasing their forest cover) tend to displace land use outside their borders. However, lack of comprehensive data on deforestation drivers imply that it has not been possible to ascertain whether this has accelerated forest loss in sourcing countries. To remedy this, we present a land-balance model that quantifies deforestation embodied in production of agricultural and forestry commodities at country level across the tropics and subtropics, subsequently tracing embodied deforestation to countries of apparent consumption using a physical, country-to-country trade model. We find that in the period 2005-2013, 62% (5.5 Mha yr−1) of forest loss could be attributed to expanding commercial cropland, pastures and tree plantations. The commodity groups most commonly associated with deforestation were cattle meat, forestry products, oil palm, cereals and soybeans, though variation between countries and regions was large. A large (26%) and slightly increasing share of deforestation was attributed to international demand, the bulk of which (87%) was exported to countries that either exhibit decreasing deforestation rates or increasing forest cover (late- or post-forest transition countries), particularly in Europe and Asia (China, India, and Russia). About a third of the net forest gains in post-forest transition countries was in this way offset by imports of commodities causing deforestation elsewhere, suggesting that achieving a global forest transition will be substantially more challenging than achieving national or regional ones.

Provision of food is a prerequisite for the functioning of human society. Cropland where food and feed are grown is the central, limiting resource for food production. The amount of cropland needed depends on population numbers, average food consumption patterns, and output per unit of land. Around the globe, these factors show large differences. We use data from the Food and Agriculture Organization to consistently assess subcontinental dynamics of how much land was needed to supply the prevailing diets during a span of 46 y, from 1961 to 2007. We find that, in most regions, diets became richer while the land needed to feed one person decreased. A decomposition approach is used to quantify the contributions of the main drivers of cropland requirements for food: changes in population, agricultural technology, and diet. We compare the impact of these drivers for different subcontinents and find that potential land savings through yield increases were offset by a combination of population growth and dietary change. The dynamics of the three factors were the largest in developing regions and emerging economies. The results indicate an inverse relationship between the two main drivers behind increased land requirements for food: with socioeconomic development, population growth decreases and, at the same time, diets become richer. In many regions, dietary change may override population growth as major driver behind land requirements for food in the near future.

Safeguarding the world’s remaining forests is a high-priority goal. We assess the biophysical option space for feeding the world in 2050 in a hypothetical zero-deforestation world. We systematically combine realistic assumptions on future yields, agricultural areas, livestock feed and human diets. For each scenario, we determine whether the supply of crop products meets the demand and whether the grazing intensity stays within plausible limits. We find that many options exist to meet the global food supply in 2050 without deforestation, even at low crop-yield levels. Within the option space, individual scenarios differ greatly in terms of biomass harvest, cropland demand and grazing intensity, depending primarily on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of human diets. Grazing constraints strongly limit the option space. Without the option to encroach into natural or semi-natural land, trade volumes will rise in scenarios with globally converging diets, thereby decreasing the food self-sufficiency of many developing regions. Safeguarding existing forests is an important ecological concern but constrains the expansion of farmland to feed the growing world population. Here the authors analyse the option space for future changes in agriculture and diets compatible with a no-deforestation goal.

Analyses of potential and actual biomass stocks indicate that trade-offs exist between conserving carbon stocks on managed land and raising the contribution of biomass to raw material and energy supply for the mitigation of climate change. Land management impact on biomass Land use by humans leads to loss of carbon from the Earth's biomass. Karl-Heinz Erb and colleagues estimate the amount of carbon that has been lost from terrestrial vegetation as a result of land conversion and management by compiling global maps of current terrestrial carbon stocks and potential carbon stocks that would exist without human disturbance. They find that land use has halved terrestrial carbon stocks. The effects of land management (forest management and grazing) seem to be similar to those of land conversion: land conversion accounts for 53–58% of the carbon stock losses and land management accounts for 42–47%. The findings imply that avoiding deforestation is necessary but not sufficient for climate-change mitigation. Carbon stocks in vegetation have a key role in the climate system 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . However, the magnitude, patterns and uncertainties of carbon stocks and the effect of land use on the stocks remain poorly quantified. Here we show, using state-of-the-art datasets, that vegetation currently stores around 450 petagrams of carbon. In the hypothetical absence of land use, potential vegetation would store around 916 petagrams of carbon, under current climate conditions. This difference highlights the massive effect of land use on biomass stocks. Deforestation and other land-cover changes are responsible for 53–58% of the difference between current and potential biomass stocks. Land management effects (the biomass stock changes induced by land use within the same land cover) contribute 42–47%, but have been underestimated in the literature. Therefore, avoiding deforestation is necessary but not sufficient for mitigation of climate change. Our results imply that trade-offs exist between conserving carbon stocks on managed land and raising the contribution of biomass to raw material and energy supply for the mitigation of climate change. Efforts to raise biomass stocks are currently verifiable only in temperate forests, where their potential is limited. By contrast, large uncertainties hinder verification in the tropical forest, where the largest potential is located, pointing to challenges for the upcoming stocktaking exercises under the Paris agreement.

Land-use has transformed ecosystems over three quarters of the terrestrial surface, with massive repercussions on biodiversity. Land-use intensity is known to contribute to the effects of land-use on biodiversity, but the magnitude of this contribution remains uncertain. Here, we use a modified countryside species-area model to compute a global account of the impending biodiversity loss caused by current land-use patterns, explicitly addressing the role of land-use intensity based on two sets of intensity indicators. We find that land-use entails the loss of ~15% of terrestrial vertebrate species from the average 5 × 5 arcmin-landscape outside remaining wilderness areas and ~14% of their average native area-of-habitat, with a risk of global extinction for 556 individual species. Given the large fraction of global land currently used under low land-use intensity, we find its contribution to biodiversity loss to be substantial (~25%). While both sets of intensity indicators yield similar global average results, we find regional differences between them and discuss data gaps. Our results support calls for improved sustainable intensification strategies and demand-side actions to reduce trade-offs between food security and biodiversity conservation. Land use is a major driver of biodiversity loss, but disentangling the contribution of its various components is challenging. Here, the authors partition the role of land use type and intensity in explaining global patterns of impending species losses for terrestrial vertebrates.

In the context of growing societal demands for land-based products, crop production can be increased through expanding cropland or intensifying production on cultivated land. Intensification can allow sparing land for nature, but it can also drive further expansion of cropland, i.e. a rebound effect. Conversely, constraints on cropland expansion may induce intensification. We tested these hypotheses by investigating the bidirectional relationships between changes in cropland area and intensity, using a global cross-country panel dataset over 55 years, from 1961 to 2016. We used a cointegration approach with additional tests to disentangle long- and short-run causal relations between variables, and total factor productivity and yields as two measures of intensification. Over the long run we found support for the induced intensification thesis for low-income countries. In the short run, intensification resulted in a rebound effect in middle-income countries, which include many key agricultural producers strongly competitive in global agricultural commodity markets. This rebound effect manifested for commodities with high price-elasticity of demand, including rubber, flex crops (sugarcane, oil palm and soybean), and tropical fruits. Over the long run, strong rebound effects remained for key commodities such as flex crops and rubber. The intensification of staple cereals such as wheat and rice resulted in significant land sparing. Intensification in low-income countries, driven by increases in total factor productivity, was associated with a stronger rebound effect than yields increases. Agglomeration economies may drive yield increases for key tropical commodity crops. Our study design enables the analysis of other complex long- and short-run causal dynamics in land and social-ecological systems.

Cropland is crucial for supplying humans with biomass products, above all, food. Globalization has led to soaring volumes of international trade, resulting in strongly increasing distances between the locations where land use takes place and where the products are consumed. Based on a dataset that allows tracing the flows of almost 450 crop and livestock products and consistently allocating them to cropland areas in over 200 nations, we analyze this rapidly growing spatial disconnect between production and consumption for the period from 1986 to 2009. At the global level, land for export production grew rapidly (by about 100 Mha), while land supplying crops for direct domestic use remained virtually unchanged. We show that international trade on average flows from high-yield to low-yield regions: compared to a hypothetical no-trade counterfactual that assumes equal consumption and yield levels, trade lowered global cropland demand by almost 90 Mha in 2008 (3-year mean). An analysis using yield gap data (which quantify the distance of prevailing yields to those attainable through the best currently available production techniques) revealed that differences in land management and in natural endowments contribute almost equally to the yield differences between exporting and importing nations. A comparison of the effect of yield differences between exporting and importing regions with the potential of closing yield gaps suggests that increasing yields holds greater potentials for reducing future cropland demand than increasing and adjusting trade volumes based on differences in current land productivity.

Production of commercial agricultural commodities for domestic and foreign markets is increasingly driving land clearing in tropical regions, creating links and feedback effects between geographically separated consumption and production locations. Such teleconnections are commonly studied through calculating consumption footprints and quantifying environmental impacts embodied in trade flows, e.g., virtual water and land, biomass, or greenhouse gas emissions. The extent to which land-use change (LUC) and associated carbon emissions are embodied in the production and export of agricultural commodities has been less studied. Here we quantify tropical deforestation area and carbon emissions from LUC induced by the production and the export of four commodities (beef, soybeans, palm oil, and wood products) in seven countries with high deforestation rates (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea). We show that in the period 2000-2011, the production of the four analyzed commodities in our seven case countries was responsible for 40% of total tropical deforestation and resulting carbon losses. Over a third of these impacts was embodied in exports in 2011, up from a fifth in 2000. This trend highlights the growing influence of global markets in deforestation dynamics. Main flows of embodied LUC are Latin American beef and soybean exports to markets in Europe, China, the former Soviet bloc, the Middle East and Northern Africa, whereas embodied emission flows are dominated by Southeast Asian exports of palm oil and wood products to consumers in China, India and the rest of Asia, as well as to the European Union. Our findings illustrate the growing role that global consumers play in tropical LUC trajectories and highlight the need for demand-side policies covering whole supply chains. We also discuss the limitations of such demand-side measures and call for a combination of supply- and demand-side policies to effectively limit tropical deforestation, along with research into the interactions of different types of policy interventions.

Understanding and acting on biodiversity loss requires robust tools linking biodiversity impacts to land use change, the biggest threat to terrestrial biodiversity. Here we estimate agriculture’s impact on the Brazilian Cerrado’s biodiversity using three approaches—countryside Species-Area Relationship, Species Threat Abatement and Restoration and Species Habitat Index. By using same input data, we show how indicator scope and design affects impact assessments and resulting decision-support. All indicators show agriculture expansion’s increasing pressure on biodiversity. Results suggest that metrics are complementary, providing distinctly different insight into biodiversity change drivers and impacts. Meaningful applications of biodiversity indicators therefore require compatibility between focal questions and indicator choice regarding temporal, spatial, and ecological perspectives on impact and drivers. Backward-looking analyses focused on historical land use change and accountability are best served by the countryside-Species Area Relationship and the Species Habitat Index. Forward-looking analyses of impact risk hotspots and global extinctions mitigation are best served by the Species Threat Abatement and Restoration. Land use change has important impacts on biodiversity. Here, the authors calculate agriculture’s impact on the Brazilian Cerrado’s diversity with three methods, finding consistent magnitude of impacts and complementary insights among approaches, and using these findings to make recommendations for their application.