Mapping the conflict between agriculture and biodiversity

Food is one of society’s biggest moral problems. Its production is driving many species to the brink of extinction and grazing is destroying ecosystems. However, for government, industry, and society to effectively balance agricultural needs with environmental needs, quantitative information is needed. Researchers in Japan, including the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN), provided the data by combining maps of conservation priorities with data on trade in nearly 200 countries and 50 agricultural products. Their findings, as reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesindicates which commodities are likely to be grown in areas with a high priority for conservation and are expected to assist with policies that protect biodiversity while safeguarding the global food trade.

For decades now, recognizing the alarming damage our lifestyle is doing to the atmosphere and water supplies, countries and regions have pursued policies that sustain economic growth while minimizing irreparable environmental damage. Similar action is needed for land use in agricultural production, but there is little understanding of the impact of consumer demand on various food and other agricultural commodities.

“Food production remains a major cause of biodiversity loss,” explained one of the study’s authors, RIHN Associate Professor Dr. Keiichiro Kanemoto. “However, there is a lack of comprehensive and systematic data on which products and which countries contribute most to these losses. We overlapped spatially with farmland and species habitats to identify the agricultural commodities most at risk.”

The study divides agricultural areas into four conservation priorities and correlates each agricultural commodity with its production on land with different priority levels. The researchers found that about a third of land use occurred in areas of high conservation priority, while less than a quarter occurred in areas of low priority. In particular, commodities that are major staple food items, such as beef, rice and soybeans, tend to be produced in areas with high conservation priority. But other staples, such as barley and wheat, are often sourced from low-priority areas.

Further studies show the effects of international trade. Coffee and cocoa are primarily grown in high conservation priority areas in equatorial countries, but the reason is largely to meet the demands of wealthy countries such as the United States and members of the European Union, who have a taste for these two commodities. At the global level, the high demand for various commodities makes China the largest influencer in food production in high priority conservation areas.

In addition, the type of soil used for a commodity depends on the country in which the commodity is produced. For example, beef and soybeans are grown in high conservation priority areas in Brazil but not in North America. Similarly, wheat is grown in areas of lower conservation priority in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe.

In addition, commodity export destination countries are correlated with the type of land used for their production. The United States, European Union, China and Japan all rely heavily on trading partners to meet their demand for beef and dairy products. However, more than a quarter of the beef and milk consumed by Japan comes from high conservation priority areas, while for other areas the figure is closer to ten percent.

That suggests there is an opportunity to sustain changes in supply without compromising current consumption patterns, said Kanemoto.

Today, many countries are aware of the pressures caused by livestock, soy and oil palm in areas of high conservation priority. In particular, the study shows that other commodities, including maize, sugarcane and rubber, are also causing undue pressure and deserve more attention in policy making.

“Our spatial approach is a valuable complementary method to other standard techniques for evaluating the impact of agriculture on biodiversity. The knowledge gained from our research will help reduce the trade-offs that many countries associate with agricultural production and environmental protection,” said Kanemoto.

The research was conducted by researchers from RIHN, the Research Institute for Forestry and Forest Products (FFPRI), Tohoku University, and several other institutions.