Feeding humanity without degrading nature on land

Today, agriculture accounts for 38% of Earth’s terrestrial surface (Foley et al., 2011) and produces enough calories for all people in the world (Ramankutty et al., 2018). Many millions of people have been lifted out of hunger but food security continues to be a major challenge globally (Godfray et al., 2010). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that the number of undernourished people increased to 821 million in 2017. Similarly, stunting and wasting continue to affect children under the age of five, with more than 150 million and 50 million children affected in the same year, respectively. At the same time, obesity is rising, affecting more than 670 million people worldwide (FAO 2018).

There are many reasons for the mismatch between the increased availability of food and the continued existence of undernourishment. On the supply side, food production is not evenly distributed globally, and regions differ in terms of yield, irrigation, nutrient application and climate impacts, among other factors (Monfreda et al., 2008; Lobell et al., 2011; Mueller et al., 2012; Searchinger et al., 2013; Ramankutty et al., 2018). Consumption is further impeded in some places by access, affordability, and poverty. Added to this are increasing food waste across the food value chain from production to consumption (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2013; Odegard and van der Voet, 2014), market influences on food price (O’Hara and Stagl, 2001; Headey and Fan, 2008) and other factors affecting the distribution of food.

Besides, in many regions the expansion of industrial agriculture–via incentives from trade agreements, government subsidies, and global mergers of large agribusinesses corporations–

threatens small-scale agriculture, still a significant and in many countries the main contributor to food production and food security (IPES-Food 2017). Beyond agriculture, hunting, gathering, and herding systems continue to be crucial for locally appropriate food security, and such systems have sometimes suffered at the expense of subsidies for and externally imposed notions of appropriate nutrition and food production (EALLU 2017, Council of Canadian Academies 2014). Despite their importance, these non-agriculture food systems represent an important gap in literatures on scenarios and pathways (except for fishing, see 5.3.2.5 and also 5.3.2.4); accordingly, our focus in this section is largely on agriculture.

Agriculture is a fundamental driver of global biodiversity loss through its area expansion and the increase of pollutants and of resources used in production (including irrigation water, fertilizers and pesticides) (see Chapters 2, 3). Meanwhile, agriculture depends strongly on healthy ecosystems for a diversity of supporting ecosystem processes, including nutrient remineralization, soil health, insect pollination, and biological pest control (Seppelt et al., 2017; Power, 2010). The core question addressed here is whether and how agriculture and associated food systems will be able to meet the needs of the global population in the coming decades, without further degrading natural resources (and possibly even

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

restoring some). Addressing this question requires consideration of the globalization of food systems and the varying contributions and roles that different regions play in food production (Figure 5.7).

We organize the discussion about pathways in relation to agricultural production, the supply chain and consumers. While much of the literature has focused on reconciling agricultural production and conservation, other issues also need attention. These include food distribution systems, waste, poverty, inequality and personal food preferences, all of which provide direction for tackling hunger and malnutrition, and ultimately, environmental degradation (Cassidy et al., 2013; Tilman and Clark, 2014; Bennett, 2017). It is also critical to reflect on current trends of global food production systems becoming more capital-intensive. The concentration of food production in fewer hands, and the centralized control of inputs pose a significant threat to small-scale agriculture (FAO, 2017).

What do scenarios say about how to achieve these goals?

Agricultural production pathways

Considerable debate addresses how best to balance food production and nature conservation, minimizing land clearing and biodiversity loss (Balmford et al., 2005; Bruinsma, 2011;

Phalan et al., 2011; Tscharntke et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2013; Kok et al., 2014; Erb et al., 2016; Smith, 2018, Foley et al., 2011). Two interconnected aspects are key: (1) where food is produced and nature is conserved (spatial distribution of nature and agricultural lands), and (2) how and by whom food is produced.

Some argue that achieving this balance requires land sparing (intensification of agriculture for high yields and the setting aside areas for conservation—a binary approach), while others argue for land sharing (integrated approaches where these two forms of land-use are blended and wildlife-friendly techniques are applied). Based on different approaches scholars

independently come to the conclusion that agricultural yields can be increased substantially without further expansion of agricultural area (Mauser et al., 2015; Erb et al., 2016; Delzeit et al., 2017) but with intensification of land-use. In the extreme, biologist E. O. Wilson has called for protecting “half Earth” (Wilson, 2016), producing more and healthier food through sustainable intensification on existing farmland, and returning the other half of land to nature.

Lately, many authors have argued that this simplified dichotomy (“land sparing” vs. “land sharing”) limits future possibilities (Kremen, 2015). A stringent application of one of the two strategies everywhere is undesirable, as what is optimal may strongly differ regionally based on socioeconomic, cultural and ecological characteristics—and the region’s role in global food systems (Figure 5.7).

This leads to another important debate regarding the nature/scale of agricultural systems.

Agro-industrial systems, consisting of input-intensive monocultures and industrial-scale feedlots currently dominate farming landscapes (IPES-Food, 2016; FAO, 2017). The

uniformity at the heart of these systems, and their reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and preventive use of antibiotics, systematically yields negative outcomes and vulnerabilities,

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

which might lead to system lock-ins (Geiger et al. 2019, Wagner et al, 2016; Hunke et al., 2015). To avoid such problems, there is a need to scale up sustainable practices, including agroecology (IPES-Food, 2016; FAO, 2017; Muller et al., 2017, Rockstrom et al., 2017). A recent study explored the role that organic agriculture could play in sustainable food systems (Muller et al., 2017). These authors showed that—in combination with reductions of food waste and food-competing feed, with correspondingly reduced production and consumption of animal products—organic agriculture could feed the world using less land than the reference scenario, and that it could also bring several environmental benefits, including a decrease in pesticide use.

Agroecology practices can play a key role. Applied to small-holders they can boost food security: smallholders rather than large-scale farming are the backbone of global food security efforts, given that 80% of the hungry live in developing countries and 50% are smallholders (Tscharntke et al., 2012). The move towards sustainable agriculture may include the adaptation and transfer of agroecological practices and technologies to areas and nations with relatively low yields (“bridging the yield gap”, Pradhan et al, 2015). Such efforts could enable more efficient nutrient use worldwide, but they are no substitute for regional strategies to achieve food security. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs are frequently mentioned in regional to local scenarios (SM 5.2) as an important complementary measure to help facilitate the transition (e.g., Kisaka et al., 2015; see 5.4.2.1 about incentives).

The majority of current integrated global scenarios largely rely on a land

sharing/intensification approach (see Section 5.3.1.2, SM 5.2.B), allocating food production across the globe to the most suitable lands, and envisioning extensive land restoration. The Roads to Rio+20 is an exception, also representing a land sparing pathway (Box 5.1).

Regional to local scenarios (SM 5.2.C to F) tend to explore multiple pathways, detailing the challenges and opportunities of such pathways, and in some cases contrasting perspectives.

Regional to local scenarios highlight the following as core pathway elements to achieve the goals of food production and nature conservation: spatial planning; strengthened protected areas; measures to avoid the social and environment rebounds of agricultural intensification;

resolution of land tenure issues; routine law enforcement; participation in strengthened governance structures. The importance of international cooperation and cross-national

governance structures has been stressed by several scenario studies given the globalization of production and the need to upscale local innovations (Gells et al, 2016, Pouzols et al., 2014, van Vuuren et al., 2015, SCBD, 2014).

Consumer pathways: changes and diets and pressure for certified products Consumers can influence supply chains and agriculture production through consumption choices, including changes towards healthier and environmentally friendly diets. The heterogeneous trends of population growth and urbanization across different regions, and different countries’ positions as consumers or producers in the globalized food system, underlie such discussions.

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

At the global scale (Table SM 5. B), several authors have discussed the impacts of alternative diets on land-cover change and, consequently, on biodiversity loss (Stehfest et al., 2009;

Popp, Lotze-Campen and Bodirsky, 2010; Schader et al., 2015; Erb et al., 2016; Delzeit et al., 2018). For instance, Stehfest et al.’s (2009) four scenarios of dietary variants—all of which reduce meat consumption (ranging from partial to complete elimination of meat from global diets)—lessened projected land-use change (and impacts on ecosystem services more broadly) and emissions. Potential instruments discussed in such studies include regulation, economic incentives, and information campaigns.

Regional to local scenarios focused less on consumption and diet changes, except in the US and EU. In the United States, for instance, Peters et al. (2016) evaluated ten alternative diet scenarios (varying the content of meat and dairy consumption) based on projected human carrying capacity (persons fed by unit land area). Their results indicate that (a) diet

composition greatly influences overall land footprint, and imply very different allocation of land by crop type; (b) shifts toward plant-based diets may need to be accompanied by changes in agronomic and horticultural research, extension, farm operator knowledge, infrastructure, livestock management, farm and food policy, and international trade; and (c) diets with low to modest amounts of meat outperform a vegan diet, and vegetarian diets including dairy products performed best overall.

In meat producing countries like Brazil, recent scenario studies tend to focus on measures to transform cattle ranching (see for example, Strasburg et al, 2014, MCTI 2018, see Table SM 5.2.C). These studies argued that even with current trends in meat consumption, a boost in the current low productivity of the sector—combined with adequate measures to avoid social and environmental rebounds of intensification—could decrease deforestation and even liberate area for restoration. In contrast, global scenarios, particularly recent ones aligned to 1.5°C targets (see Box 5.2 and 5.3), tend to consider a reduction in meat consumption as a necessary measure, given competition for land (biofuels and reforestation), emission and pollution concerns.

Finally, consumer pressure for goods produced in an environmentally friendly and socially just manner is a strong mechanism for transforming food systems. Certification programs are often mentioned as an important pathway element in scenarios at all scales (SM 5.2), as further discussed below (and in 5.4.3.2; Chapter 6).

Supply chain pathways

Supply chains link producers and consumers via local to global networks of processors, traders, retailers, investors and banks. The relatively small number of actors (compared to producers and consumers) provides opportunities for levers of transformation, as such key actors may influence decisions made by primary producers and others throughout supply chains (Kok et al., 2014). Partnerships between public and private actors involved in supply chains seem promising for mainstreaming biodiversity protection and engaging multiple levers of change.

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

A good example of supply chain initiatives is the Soy Moratorium in Brazil’s Amazon, a production system telecoupled via global markets (see also Chapter 6). This Moratorium was the first voluntary zero-deforestation agreement implemented in the tropics and set the stage for supply-chain governance of other commodities, such as beef and palm oil (Gibbs et al., 2015). In response to pressure from retailers and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), major soybean traders signed the moratorium, agreeing not to purchase soy grown on lands deforested after July 2006 in the Brazilian Amazon. A monitoring system verifies individual producers. Although few integrated quantitative scenarios represented such measures

explicitly, qualitative scenarios often mentioned them as key elements, tied to other governmental and civil society measures (for instance, Aguiar et al., 2016).

The trend of concentration of food systems in few companies also tends to create major asymmetries in economic and power relations. Such asymmetries must also be addressed to ensure fairness and underpin necessary changes regarding food waste, distribution, and more sustainable and healthier practices (IPES-Food, 2016). One core example is the vested interests of large companies that produce pesticides and chemical inputs.

5.3.2.2 Meeting climate goals while maintaining nature and nature’s contributions to