MENU

Social Channels

SEARCH ARCHIVE


Additional Options
Topic

Date Range

Receive a Daily or Weekly summary of the most important articles direct to your inbox, just enter your email below:

Agriculture on hills in the Burundian countryside. The green patches are tea, and there's also some wheat fields.
FOOD AND FARMING
19 April 2016 16:55

Feeding the world: Can we preserve forests, go organic and eat meat?

Roz Pidcock

Roz Pidcock

04.19.16
Roz Pidcock

Roz Pidcock

19.04.2016 | 4:55pm
Food and farmingFeeding the world: Can we preserve forests, go organic and eat meat?

It is possible to produce enough food to feed a growing population without another tree being felled, according to new research. But there’s a catch.

The only way to guarantee enough food in 2050 is if the world turns vegan, says the study published today in Nature Communications. That way, even the most pessimistic projections for technological improvements and availability of farmland wouldn’t see people going hungry.

With a global transition to veganism unlikely, the study explores the options left on the table if we continue to eat meat, as well as how climate change might narrow those options further.

The study is more of a thought experiment than a realistic set of projections. But the point it makes is simple: we, as humans, must work out how to make the most appropriate use of a finite amount of land. While there will inevitably be compromises, the paper concludes:

“Deforestation is not a precondition for supplying the world with sufficient food in terms of quantity and quality in 2050.”

“Zero-deforestation”

Whether for growing crops, grazing or building on, 75% of the Earth’s ice-free surface is used in one way or another by humans, today’s study begins. Put another way, only a quarter is left in something resembling its natural state.

Land-based ecosystems house a large fraction of the world’s biodiversity, as well as providing food, fuel, energy, air and water purification, and protection against the elements for humans.

Forests, in particular, also play an important role in mitigating climate change. The paper notes:

“Forests store more carbon than any other land-cover type per unit area.”

The starting point for the study is a hypothetical world in which the global population recognises the intrinsic value of our remaining forests and halts to deforestation.

The authors look at the projected global population in 2050 and work out what options exist for ensuring the supply of food meets demand, without encroaching on any forested land.

As well as a global average, the study considers whether supply meets demand in 11 distinct regions of the world. These include, for example, sub-Saharan Africa, North America, Western Europe and Southeast Asia.

The authors express food demand in kilocalories per capita per day and the base projections are in line with estimates from the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO).

Regarding the consequence of a growing population on demand for cereals, roots, sugar crops, pulses, oil crops, and fruit and vegetables, the paper explains:

“Safeguarding the existing forests constrains agricultural development as it limits the expansion of cropland and grazing areas. Consequently, the increasing demand for food, feed, fibre and fuel of a growing world population will have to be met on shrinking per capita land areas.”

Options on the table

The study examines how various different factors combine to affect whether or not demand is met in 2050. These include the expansion of farmland (ranging between 11-70% compared to 2000), the size of crop yields (high, low or business-as-usual) and the composition of human diet (ranging from heavy meat consumption through to veganism).

Of 500 pathways, each featuring a unique combination of these factors, 289 are likely to produce enough food while still staying within the study’s “zero-deforestation” limits.

According to the study’s results, 100% of scenarios that exclude all livestock manage to supply enough food to meet demand in 2050. In other words, if the whole world becomes vegan, the global population in 2050 could eat enough without another tree being cut down.

The same would be true if the whole world turned vegetarian, assuming the area available for crops expands more than about 22% compared to 2000 levels. The paper says:

“A vegan or vegetarian diet is associated with only half the cropland demand, grazing intensity and overall biomass harvest of comparable meat-based human diets.”

Assuming the world neither turns vegan nor vegetarian, what options are left? The study explores various options for continuing to eat meat, while still keeping our forests in tact.

The many permutations of different types of livestock (cows, pigs, chickens etc), what they’re fed on and the grazing intensity make for a pretty complex picture.

Broadly-speaking, if the diet of North America in 2000 were to prevail globally in 2050, only scenarios in which technological advancements produce very high yields or where a large share of high quality grazing land is given over to cropland provide enough food.

Scenarios that see global food demand and diets in different regions rise in line with FAO forecasts for 2050 – representing a “business-as-usual” scenario – provide enough food in all but the lowest yielding scenarios with little cropland expansion. 

Women harvest rice in the remote village of Tanjung Alam ('Corner of Nature') in the highlands of Jambi Province, Sumatra.

Women harvest rice in the remote village of Tanjung Alam (‘Corner of Nature’) in the highlands of Jambi Province, Sumatra. Credit: Rainforest Action Network.

Climate impact

The study does not explicitly model the impact of climate change on food production, or how it affects the results presented above. This was a deliberate choice because the severity of the consequences is uncertain, says lead author Prof Karl-Heinz Erb from Alpen-Adria University in Vienna. He tells Carbon Brief:

“We have general effects that are not well-known, and it is unclear which one is stronger.”

Erb explains that where nutrients and water are freely available, higher atmospheric CO2 could increase plant growth – an effect known as CO2 fertilisation. Lengthening growing seasons could be another consequence of rising temperature. But, Erb adds:

“On the other hand, the shift in climate patterns could lead to to increased occurrence of extreme events (e.g droughts) and, so, reduce yields.”

Instead, the paper makes a general point about the consequence of low yields, saying:

“Apparently, the increased area demand resulting from low yields renders scenarios with richer diets unfeasible.”

As a reasonable approximation to climate change, the authors point to their “organic” scenario, in which crop yields per harvest are 40% lower compared to industrial agriculture. Erb explains:

“Organic farming is at the lower end of the possible yield level.”

The study’s organic route is only likely to be able to support the FAO’s business-as-usual meat-eating scenario out to 2050 if cropland expands at least 20% on 2000 levels. No scenarios allow for an organic approach to food production and global adoption of a North American style diet, the study suggests.

 a) Cropland demand, b) average yields, c) grazing intensity and d) biomass harvest for four different yield scenarios.

a) Cropland demand, b) average yields, c) grazing intensity and d) biomass harvest for four different yield scenarios. The study points to the low yield/organic scenario (left bar in all four panels) as an indicator of the climate impacts on food production in a deforestation-constrained world. Numbers below diets indicate the number of feasible scenarios. Source: Erb et al., (2016)

On the climate-benefits of organic agriculture more generally, the paper explains:

“[T]he benefits from increased soil carbon stocks of organic agriculture can be annihilated by the larger area demand resulting from lower yields of organic agriculture. In this regard, the massive greenhouse gas emission costs associated with the expansion of cropland into grazing land, currently not well documented, will be crucial.”

Understatement

While the study attempts to discuss the impacts of climate change in its vision of a zero-deforestation world, the real situation will be far more complicated, says Prof Andy Challinor, professor of climate impacts with expertise in food security at the University of Leeds. He tells Carbon Brief:

“Climate change is not only about low yields, it’s about increased variability. This isn’t assessed at all in the new study.”

Simply comparing organic agriculture to climate change impacts misses the very important impacts of extreme weather events on crop production. Challinor adds:

“The fact that the impacts are complicated and often have no simple numerical answer is not a reason to ignore these important effects”

Erb acknowledges the shortcoming in his study’s discussion of climate change, telling Carbon Brief the comparison with the organic pathway is “guess-working”.

There are other simplifications and elements that make the study purely hypothetical, too. For example, it assumes that shortfalls in regional food production can be met through international trade. As the paper explains, the reality is likely to be quite different:

“Socioeconomic barriers or obstacles to biomass trade, which could result from subsidy systems, tariffs or other regulations, could narrow the options space by rendering more scenarios unfeasible.”

As such, the study is intended more as a vehicle to provoke conversation than to elicit concrete recommendations. Indeed, the authors say the paper:

“It is not aimed at exploring probabilities, and it does not support straightforward conclusions regarding the desirability, political practicability or sustainability performance of different scenarios.”

The simple point the authors make is about the trade-offs between quality and quantity of food production in a deforestation-constrained world.

Main image: Agriculture on hills in the Burundian countryside. The green patches are tea. Until recently most of these hills were completely forested. Credit: Jane Boles/Flickr.

Source: Erb, K. et al., (2016) Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11382

Sharelines from this story
  • Feeding the world: Can we preserve forests, go organic and eat meat?
  • The only way to guarantee enough food in 2050 is if the world turns vegan, study finds
  • Rose Louise

    It’s incredibly easy to go vegan. Plus, vegan foods taste great and are less costly on average than animal-based foods. I encourage everyone to give it a try!

    • Pete Brace

      Having spent several years working very hard to reduce my fossil fuel emissions, I would argue that vegan is not the most sustainable option for much of the world.

      In the UK, for example, it is very difficult to produce enough fat to meet our needs. Rape seed is fairly impractical in an organic system, as it is very fertiliser dependant. Growing rape or sunflowers requires a huge area of cultivation – this cultivation releases more CO2 than pasture and is difficult without fossil fuel powered machinery.

      In the system we use, cows graze under apple trees, followed by horses (used to cultivate the annual crops). The whey from cheese making, combined with inedible parts of the crops, a small amount of waste food and waste apple pulp feed a couple of pigs. Every year there is one cow to eat as a bi-product of the dairy. Thus the land use for the animals is greatly reduced.

      During the hungry gap (spring time), when there is little else to eat, the dairy and meat is invaluable and we would struggle to survive without importing a large proportion of our food.

      Most UK vegans import much of their food – sunflower oil, soya, tofu, lentils etc.

      I doubt that this study took into account more complicated mixed farming using ‘default livestock’ methods.

  • NP1

    try telling the Inuit to go vegan

    • Kevin Schmidt

      Is your straw man vegan?

  • GeoffBeacon

    The paper says “Climate-change effects on yields are not taken into account in this study, in line with the projections by the FAO”

    What about the more serious issue “climate-change effects” caused by food production. This looks like another paper written in a narrow silo of policy using super extended codes to make it look as if it’s clever and useful. (cf Basil Bernstein)

    Can’t someone turn this into an easy to digest infographic or 90 second video so we don’t have to read stuff like “An overview of the option space according to our scenario calculations”


Related Articles

THE BRIEF

Expert analysis directly to your inbox.

Get a Daily or Weekly round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email.

THE BRIEF

Expert analysis directly to your inbox.

Get a Daily or Weekly round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email.