Reorganizing land use and reducing GHG emissions are the most critical aspects of meeting biodiversity and climate change mitigation goals. Joined-up policy is essential to achieve successful outcomes. This goes beyond the avoidance of inconsistent approaches, such as clearing pristine biodiverse habitats to grow biofuels, and will entail coordinated biodiversity and climate action. Assessing current land use and future demand is a key aspect of this approach. Food production already occupies the largest area (50 per cent) of habitable land, with greater land claims expected leading up to 2050. This is, to some extent, in line with human population growth, but increased demand for land-intensive commodities (mainly from animal agriculture) is the key driver. In addition, agriculture contributes around 25 per cent to global GHG emissions – and annual emissions are likely to increase by around 60 per cent up to 2050. By 2030, GHGs from livestock production alone will account for around half of the GHG budget consistent with limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C. Without addressing food production, tackling biodiversity loss and limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C will be impossible – even if all fossil fuel emissions ceased immediately.
Several aspects of the Aichi framework aimed to address food and agriculture-related impacts on biodiversity. These included a series of targets for the removal of harmful subsidies, the sustainable management of agriculture, the reduction of pollution and excess nutrients, as well as the creation of a global network of protected areas to shield nature from agricultural exploitation. However, meaningful change to food systems has not been implemented in any UN member state and indicators are going in the wrong direction with increasing production of, and demand for, the most environmentally expensive commodities (mostly meat and dairy from animal agriculture). The GBF provides an opportunity over the next decade to address this with a number of food-relevant targets for 2030, including: reducing nutrients lost to the environment by at least 50 per cent and pesticides by at least 66 per cent; redirecting, repurposing, reforming or eliminating incentives harmful for biodiversity, and reducing them by at least $500 billion per year; ensuring all areas under agriculture are managed sustainably; fully integrating biodiversity values into policies and regulations; encouraging businesses to reduce negative biodiversity impacts by at least 50 per cent and increase positive impacts; and enabling people to avoid overconsumption of food and halve food waste.
In terms of restoring carbon sinks and biodiversity on land currently used for food production, the greatest potential exists in high and upper middle-income countries.
Similarly, on the climate change mitigation front, most NDCs do not specify targets and measures for reducing agricultural emissions despite these being included in their scope. Only two countries mention diet change in their revised NDCs (Costa Rica and Ethiopia). Of the 12 countries that include mitigation in their livestock sectors, none aim to reduce production. The Global Methane Pledge announced at COP26 does not align with the 1.5°C goal – doing so would require a 45 per cent reduction of methane emissions by 2030 and necessitate the inclusion of agriculture, specifically livestock. Farmed ruminant animals are the largest source of anthropogenic methane accounting for around 30 per cent of global emissions. While negotiations on the role of land and food systems in addressing climate change, as part of the Koronivia Joint Working Group on Agriculture, are moving towards international agreement at COP27, the recommendations are not expected to be transformational in scope. They will likely focus on reducing relative environmental impacts per unit of food produced rather than reducing absolute impacts at the overall system level. For agriculture, one of the five ‘Glasgow Breakthroughs’ under the Breakthrough Agenda – which focuses on the role of clean technologies in meeting climate targets – aims to encourage the adoption of ‘climate-resilient, sustainable agriculture’ by 2030 through the coordination and strengthening of climate action. Over 40 state-level parties have committed to the Breakthrough Agenda, including the US, India, the EU and China. There is a real risk that focusing on the reduction of relative impacts per unit of production could instead result in an increased absolute impact at the system level – for example, if reduced costs per unit of production incentivize an increase in total production. However, one outcome from COP26 was the opportunity to revise NDCs at COP27 – therefore providing scope for countries to raise ambition.
Food system transformation at the intersection of biodiversity and climate policy
While ongoing GHG emissions from food systems preclude attainment of the 1.5°C goal, agricultural land use holds the biggest potential for connecting climate and biodiversity policy approaches. Firstly, current food production methods that seek to maximize food outputs per unit of area limit the potential for integrated land uses or ‘co-benefits’. Secondly, land-intensive food production drives land-use change, such as deforestation in tropical regions, resulting in the loss of ecosystems and their associated deep carbon sinks and rich biodiversity. Thirdly, much of the land used for food production has been at the cost of biodiversity and increased GHG emissions. Hence, reducing the amount of land required for food production not only removes pressure to convert more land to agriculture, but also allows a restoration effort with benefits for biodiversity and the climate. Reconfiguring food consumption is an essential part of such a land-use shift. These changes could also deliver public health benefits, especially in higher-income countries where imbalanced food consumption (too little fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds – and too much red and processed meats) is one of the leading causes of poor health and mortality.
In terms of restoring carbon sinks and biodiversity on land currently used for food production, the greatest potential exists in high and upper middle-income countries. The opportunity to make progress in this area could help G7 countries, for example, to shift their focus from conserving current land uses to restoring lost habitats and biodiversity. Doing so would also contribute substantially to the large amount of CO₂ removal that will likely be needed to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C this century. For example, returning land currently under permanent pasture in high and upper middle-income countries back to native land cover has the potential to remove around 380 Gt CO₂ over a 30-year period – an amount equivalent to around 12 years of current global CO₂ emissions. Most countries in the G7 dedicate the majority of their land to agriculture, except Canada and Japan where agriculture occupies 7 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively (Table 2). Despite all G7 countries spanning at least one forest biome (boreal and/or temperate), naturally regenerating forest as a proportion of land area is generally low – amounting to 37 per cent, 27 per cent,16 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per cent, 1 per cent and 31 per cent in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US, respectively. France, Germany, Italy, the UK and US have substantial potential for restoring pasture back to native land cover, particularly in the UK and US where pasture is the biggest land use. For example, such a land-use shift in the UK could remove up to 3.2 Gt CO₂ from the atmosphere over a 30-year period – an amount equivalent to around nine years of current UK CO₂ emissions. With such land-use and food production shifts, there is the potential to achieve a ‘double dividend’ for climate change mitigation, as current GHG emissions from food production could also be reduced substantially.
