Shaw R, C Anderson, C Fabricius, L Glew, B Loken, S Mahajan, N Olwero, J Opperman, P Pacheco, L Pendleton, D Thau, C Weber (2020) Beyond Boundaries: Insights into emerging zoonotic diseases, nature and human well-being. WWF Global Science. Internal Science Brief. Unpublished. WWF-Science-Brief-Beyond-Boundaries-Insights-into-Emerging-Zoonotic-Diseases.pdf

Smith J, Pearce B, Wolfe MS (2012) A European perspective for developing modern multifunctional agroforestry systems for sustainable intensification. Renew Agric Food Syst 27(4):323–332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000597

Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sorlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Syed Ab Rahman SF, Singh E, Pieterse CMJ, Schenk PM (2018) Emerging microbial biocontrol strategies for plant pathogens. Plant Sci 267:102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.11.012

Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515:518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959

van Huis A, Van Itterbeeck J, Klunder H, Mertens E, Halloran A, Muir G, Vantommme P (2013) Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. FAO Forestry Paper 171. http://www.fao.org/3/i3253e/i3253e00.pdf

Westhoek H, Lesschen JP, Rood T, Wagner S, De Marco A, Murphy-Bokern D, Leip A, van Grinsven H, Sutton MA, Oenema O (2014) Food choices, health and environment: effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. Glob Environ Chang 26:196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004

Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman D, DeClerck F, Wood A, Jonell M, Clark M, Gordon L, Fanzo J, Hawkes C, Zurayk R, Rivera JA, De Vries W, Sibanda L et al (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393:447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

WRI (2018) World resources report. Creating a sustainable food future. A menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Available at https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/creating-sustain-able-food-future_2_5.pdf

WWF (2016) Living Planet Report 2016. Risk and resilience in a new era. Available at Living Planet Report 2016! Pages | WWF (worldwildlife.org)

WWF (2020) Living Planet Report. Bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the curve of biodiversity loss – ICRI (icriforum.org)

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>
# Pathways to Advance Agroecology for a Successful Transformation to Sustainable Food Systems

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Urs Niggli (✉), Martijn Sonnevelt, and Susanne Kummer

## 1 Introduction

Transforming agriculture and food systems in line with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is an imperative that can no longer be ignored or deferred (CNS-FAO 2019; Eyhorn et al. 2019). In facing up to this challenge, agroecological approaches stand to play an indispensable role by connecting environmental sustainability with social justice in production and consumption. It combines the global challenge of ending hunger with locally adapted solutions and strengthens both participation and the mobilization of local actors and their knowledge (HLPE 2019). Agroecology optimizes the system approach and integrates scientific progress responsibly. To allow for agroecology to exploit its potential, there is a need for transformation that supports the shift from a capital- to a more labor-dominated approach that strengthens the social relations of production and moves farming beyond the logic of scale-enlargement, technology-driven intensification and specialization (Van der Ploeg 2021).

This chapter is based on a well-documented multi-stakeholder process of the Swiss National FAO Committee (CNS-FAO) developed over several years to provide scientific support to the Swiss government and the public on agroecology (CNS-FAO 2016, 2019, 2021). The aim of the chapter is to highlight the potentials of agroecology in regard to the strengthened effort of the UNFSS 2021 to achieve the

<footnote>U. Niggli (✉)
Institute of Agroecology, Aarau, Switzerland
e-mail: urs.niggli@agroecology.science</footnote>

<footnote>M. Sonnevelt
World Food System Center, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote>S. Kummer
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FIBL), Vienna, Austria
e-mail: susanne.kummer@fibl.org</footnote>
SDGs, and highlight the necessary actions for mainstreaming agroecological management practices.

## 2 Global Challenges

We identify three major key challenges of global agriculture and food systems: the first challenge is that much of the world's population remains inadequately nourished, with more than 820 million people suffering from hunger. Many more consume low-quality diets, contributing to a substantial rise in the incidence of diet-related illness and obesity (Willett et al. 2019; IPCC 2019). A second challenge with global impact is the unsustainable way in which food production and consumption patterns substantially exploit the natural resources of soil, water and air (IPBES 2019). This has caused an immense biodiversity loss (Leclère et al. 2020; IPBES 2019). Third, greenhouse gas emissions are rising dramatically all around the world, with global agriculture causing 23% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore contributing substantially to global warming (IPCC 2019).

Not least due to the current Covid-19 pandemic, the fragility and vulnerability of food systems are clearer than ever. Food insecurity and acute hunger have increased, along with the number of people living in extreme poverty (HLPE 2020). Providing food for an estimated 10 billion people in 2050 is challenging. It will take a 56% increase in crop calories compared to the base year 2010 (FAO 2017), and that without even addressing such other issues as unsustainable consumption patterns, food loss and waste and the use of food crops for animal feedstuff and biofuels. The resulting substantial expansion of agricultural land, amounting to 593 million hectares (crop and grassland), must be contained wherever possible if we are to avoid releasing large amounts of CO₂ equivalents and putting biodiversity reserves at risk. Current agriculture should mitigate 11 gigatons of greenhouse gases to meet the Paris climate target of less than 2 °C of warming (World Resources Institute 2018). Future solutions must also take into account that, by 2050, it is forecasted that 68% of the world's population will live in cities (United Nations 2019), increasing the importance of urban food production.

## 3 Need for Transformation

A radical transformation of global food systems that addresses both the way we produce, process, trade and consume food and, with the same priority, the improvement of the livelihoods of farmers, farm workers and their families is necessary and cannot tolerate any delay. To provide enough food for the global population, several overriding strategies are being pursued, namely, a substantial increase in productivity, a sustainable intensification (Godfray and Garnett 2014) and an ecological
intensification (Tittonell 2014). Agroecology implements the ecological intensification strategy in agricultural practice.

Agroecology offers a powerful means of accelerating the needed transformations. Agroecology, as we understand it, has a common framework grounded in the FAO's ten elements (FAO 2018b). The ten elements of agroecology are interlinked and interdependent. They encompass ecological characteristics of agroecological systems (diversity, synergies, efficiency, resilience and recycling), social characteristics (the co-creation and sharing of knowledge, human and social values, culture and food traditions), and the enabling of political and economic environments (responsible governance, circular and solidarity economy) (FAO 2018b). These elements come together in a model that relies centrally on the non-exhaustive and non-destructive use of biodiversity and ecosystem services, with off-farm inputs playing a diminished role in production (CNS-FAO 2019).

Hundreds of thousands of farmers manage their farms with agroecological practices in one way or another, either to improve their own productivity and livelihoods or gain privileged access to markets with certificates. These practices include regenerative conservation agriculture, organic agriculture, agroforestry, permaculture, agro-silvo-pastoral systems, and sustainable pastoralism in rangelands, among others. An even higher number of farmers adopt only one or more selected techniques of agroecology, such as using integrated nutrient and pest management, introducing semi-natural habitats on the farm, applying no-till arable cropping, or adopting sustainable river basin and groundwater management. Some farmers use bio-fertilizers and bio-protectants instead of agrochemicals, apply intercropping and cover crops to increase the land equivalent ratio (LER) and involving precision agriculture and climate-smart agriculture. Nonetheless, fully agroecological farms have remained a niche. The classic role of niches is that of a “protective space” or a shelter where future solutions and novel ideas can be tried out (Smith and Raven 2012). These novel ideas could change or even replace the current regime (Geels 2011) or paradigm (Beus and Dunlap 1991).

Although agroecological practices have been successfully implemented on many farms globally and practices such as resource-conserving agriculture continue to spread to more farms and more hectares (Pretty et al. 2006), they have not become mainstream until now. The most salient obstacles to mainstreaming agroecology include the fact that it is currently unknown to the public; the time lag between implementing agroecological practices and observing positive results; weak knowledge and advisory systems; transaction costs; policy incoherence; crucial deficits in landscape-level coordination, incentive systems in research, and compensation for yield reductions; and the need to strengthen the aspect of sufficiency in a sustainability context (IIED 2015; CNS-FAO 2021).

The HLPE report (2019) found that, to effectively and sustainably address food and nutrition security, it is not sufficient to focus on technological solutions and innovations or incremental interventions alone. Food system transformation requires (i) inclusive and participatory forms of innovation governance; (ii) information and knowledge co-production and sharing among communities and networks; and (iii) responsible innovation that steers innovation towards social issues (HLPE 2019).
Given its holistic approach, transformation to agroecological practices and systems happens at various scales and dimensions, from management decisions on farms to complex and erratic transformations resulting from the sum of decisions of various actors within a wider landscape (Anderson et al. 2021). Therefore, a multi-level perspective has to be taken so as to understand enabling and disabling factors and processes relevant for mainstreaming (Geels 2011). Anderson et al. (2021) introduced the term “domains of transformation,” within which they described factors, dynamics, structures and processes that constrain or enable transformation in sustainability transitions.

Agroecological transformation can be understood as having five levels (Gliessman 2015): at level 1, farming systems become more efficient by reducing the use of fertilizers, pesticides or fuel. Level 2 involves replacing agrochemical inputs with more natural ones such as bio-fertilizers and bio-protectants. The way we understand agroecology, it also includes technologies that are safe for the environment and human health and that strengthen the systemic processes. Level 3 is about redesigning farming systems with diversified crop rotations, mixed crops, and intercropping, leading to better closed cycles of nutrients and organic material. Successful food system transformation also includes increased farmer-consumer collaborations (level 4), either with short distribution channels or internet-based remote applications, and, finally, a comprehensive transformation of policies, rules, institutions, markets and culture (level 5). The various stages proceed dynamically and in parallel, so that when framework conditions are conducive, a variety of production systems coexist and rural regions continuously change towards a higher degree of sustainability.

In our chapter, we address all five levels and propose actions that enable transformation and remove lock-ins. There is no contradiction between mainstreaming agroecology and strongly improving sustainability. Therefore, agroecology plays a crucial role for achieving the SDGs and works remarkably well in both theory and practice (COAG 2018; HLPE 2019).

# 4 Impact of an Agroecological Transformation

Agroecology has the potential to contribute to economic growth and decent work (Van der Ploeg et al. 2019), particularly for the rural poor. It contributes to local economic and resource circulation, considerably increases and stabilizes the yields of subsistence farmers (Pretty et al. 2006), and reduces costs and external dependencies. Strategies such as diversification, external input reduction and alternative marketing channels have, in some cases, been shown to improve farmers’ income by 30% (FAO 2018a). For example, integrated pest management can generate remarkable improvements: in a study in low-income countries, pesticide use declined by 71% and yields grew by 42% (Pretty et al. 2006). A study on 946 farms in France concluded that total pesticide use could be reduced by 42% without negative effects on either productivity or profitability on 59% of the investigated farms (Lechenet
et al. 2017). Conservation tillage can improve soil carbon while raising yields, and integrated plant nutrient systems can achieve the same benefits with reduced fertilizer application (Bruinsma 2003; Pretty et al. 2003, 2006; Uphoff 2007).

Furthermore, there are indications that the economic performance of alternative and agroecological farming systems can be comparable to, and is sometimes better than, conventional farming systems (D'Annolfo et al. 2017), and provide greater predictability for farmers (Chappell and LaValle 2011). Organic farms can achieve the same (Smolik et al. 1995; Rosset et al. 2011) or even higher (Nemes 2009) profitability as conventional farms. Also, agroforestry systems can have a higher return on labor compared to monocultures, (Armengot et al. 2016). Extensive evidence indicates that agroecology can, on a global scale, provide a level of food security comparable to that of conventional agriculture (Chappell and LaValle 2011). Under conditions of subsistence agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa, agroecological methods significantly improved food security and nutritional diversity (Bezner Kerr et al. 2019). Organic agriculture increases access to food by increasing the quantity of foods produced per household and producing food surpluses that can be sold at local markets, for instance (UNCTAD/UNEP 2008). The yields of organic agriculture outperform traditional subsistence systems. In their study, Pretty et al. (2006) analyzed the impacts of 286 resource-conserving practices in 57 low-income countries and found that these projects led to an average yield increase of 79%. Differences in terms of yield productivity are highly site-specific, as Tittonell (2013) showed for organic agriculture: on marginal sites, organic farming produces equal or slightly higher yields than conventional farming. However, on high-yield sites, organic farming produces significantly lower yields.

Furthermore, agro-biodiversity (a key element of agroecology) is an important driver for making a diverse range of food products available. Although the pathway is complex and not always positively correlated, agricultural diversity plays an important role in improving dietary diversity, which has a strong association with improved nutrition status, particularly the micronutrient density of diets (Fanzo et al. 2013). A recent publication by Bezner Kerr et al. (2021) found evidence for positive outcomes linked to the use of agroecological practices on food security and nutrition (FSN) in households in low- and middle-income countries. While 78% of the studies reported positive outcomes, some studies found mixed outcomes, and a few studies reported negative impact on FSN, using indicators such as dietary diversity. The most common agroecological practices included crop diversification, agroforestry, mixed crop and livestock systems, and practices improving soil quality, with positive outcomes on FSN indicators such as dietary diversity and household food security.

Yield increases alone will not address our concomitant challenges of hunger, micronutrient deficiencies and obesity. This requires broad-ranging system changes that tackle poverty, inequality and barriers to access. The systemic approach based on ethical values, often considered a part of agroecological methods, offers an opportunity to address these issues in an integrated manner. For example, in Madhya Pradesh, India, a development institute provided integrated training in agroecological techniques, health and nutrition to more than 8500 women from 850 villages over 30 years. This improved livelihoods for the majority of the women and broke the cycle of poverty (FAO 2018a).
Agroecological systems use natural resources more sustainably and efficiently, and reduce the release of agrochemicals into air, water and soil (Pretty et al. 2003; Lechenet et al. 2017). Through the enhanced proximity between producers and consumers, agroecology helps raise awareness and reduce food waste, e.g., by redistribution to food bank charities or by repurposing urban organic waste as animal feed or fertilizer (Beausang et al. 2017). Agroecology puts an emphasis on maintaining soil fertility and ecosystem services, which can improve the long-term productivity of the land. As species richness is, on average, 34% higher in organic farming (Tuck et al. 2014), and organic farming systems have higher floral and faunal diversity than conventional farming systems (Mäder et al. 2002), biodiversity can be conserved and potentially restored within agroecosystems. As organic farming is one of the best-documented agroecological farming systems in scientific terms, these results are fundamentally important for a better understanding of all agroecological practices. Studies have shown that, through diverse and heterogeneous agroecological approaches, it is possible to preserve and increase wild and domesticated biodiversity by up to 30% (FAO 2018a). The connection between climate action and agroecology is two-way – agroecological systems have the potential to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and offer management practices to adapt to climate change (FAO 2018a). Agroecological farming may lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions by reducing emissions from the production of synthetic fertilizer and carbon capture in the soil (Müller et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2008; Wood and Cowie 2004). However, these benefits have to be weighed against the lower land use efficiency or the increased requirements for labor of agroecological – especially organic – systems (Meemken and Qaim 2018; Clark and Tilman 2017). Regarding climate change adaptation, agroecology may improve the resilience of smallholders through the diversification of production and the increase in resource use efficiency by integrating social aspects (Altieri et al. 2015; Liebman and Schulte-Moore 2015). Furthermore, soil fertility, which is higher in agroecological systems, is a key prerequisite for protection against erosion and flood (Seufert and Ramankutty 2017).

# 5 The Role of Diversity for Food Productivity

One central characteristic of agroecology is diversity (FAO 2018b). In contrast, most public policies and incentives designed to increase agricultural production carry the risk of reducing the diversity of diets, food systems and landscape. A defining feature of the agroecological approach is diversity of landscape and habitats, of farm activities, of crops grown, of livestock kept and of above- and below-ground flora and fauna. Agrobiodiversity represents the creativity of life; its irreversible erosion means less capacity to innovate and adapt in the future, especially to climate change (Dury et al. 2019). Substantial improvements in the environmental sustainability of agriculture are achievable now, without sacrificing food production or farmer livelihoods (Davis et al. 2012). While short-term productivity is increasing, there is a clear loss of diversity when traditional varieties or races are replaced by improved varieties (Khourya et al. 2014). This homogenization and high
dependency on a few crops at the global scale increases vulnerability to pests, as historically illustrated by many examples in maize, banana and wheat (Dury et al. 2019). Additionally, risks of resistance increase through the wide use of pesticides and antibiotics (Dury et al. 2019). The development of ecosystem services over time in more diverse cropping systems and rotations increasingly displaces the need for external synthetic inputs while still maintaining crop productivity or even increasing yields (Ferrero et al. 2017; Davis et al. 2012).

While socioeconomic factors such as farm commercialization, off-farm income, education or seasonality significantly affect diets of rural households, the linkages between a household's own agricultural production and dietary diversity are not always clear (Muthini et al. 2020; Sibhatu and Qaim 2018; Bellon et al. 2016). A positive relation between agricultural diversification and diversified diets is shown in different contexts for both subsistence and income-generating household strategies (Jones et al. 2014; Muthini et al. 2020; Sibhatu and Qaim 2018). In a comparative analysis including 23 studies, (Jones et al. 2014) demonstrated that agricultural biodiversity has a small but clear and consistent association with more diverse household- and individual-level diets. These various relations between diversity and food and nutrition security calls for a production strategy that combines local productivity and yield stability to make best use of between- and within-crop diversification to increase long-term food and nutritional security.

Agroecological approaches elevate the role of farmers and other food producers in associated knowledge and value chains. This is especially the case for the knowledge and experience of women, as women play a key role in all stages of food production in almost all regions around the world, encompassing their practical knowledge on biodiversity, including seeds, on food preservation and recipes. Women's control of farm level decision-making is an important determinant in understanding household-level diet diversity, expressed by a positive relation between agricultural biodiversity and household diet diversity for households headed by women (Jones et al. 2014). Agroecology can create better opportunities for women by integrating diverse work tasks and specific forms of knowledge, providing a more significant role for women in the household and farm economy. As agroecology, through low initial investment costs and knowledge-intensive technologies, becomes more accessible to women, it also fosters their economic opportunities and autonomy. In its political dimension, agroecology seeks to achieve and implement a just system (Seibert et al. 2019).

# 6 Domains of Transformation with Enabling and Restraining Factors

The domains of transformation that we want to address are (i) strengthening knowledge on agroecology, (ii) working with markets, (iii) enhancing cooperation, and (iv) ensuring policy coherence to create a conducive policy context for agroecology. These four domains address both agroecological practices (levels 1, 2 and 3 of Gliessman 2015) and the wider food system changes (levels 4 and 5).
## 6.1 Strengthening Knowledge (Research, Education and Innovation) on Agroecology

The knowledge and advisory systems required to support agroecology and build the capacity of actors are insufficient (Wezel et al. 2018). A systems-oriented, transdisciplinary, and long-term field research approach is lacking. Instead, current global knowledge and research systems promote fragmented short-term output (Aboukhalil 2014; Edwards and Roy 2017).

In 2011, total global public and private investment in AgR4D exceeded 70 billion US dollars (in purchasing power parity dollars) (Pardey et al. 2016). Current global R&D investments focus mainly on major staple crops. More nutrient-dense crops such as pulses, fruits and vegetables, as well as orphan crops, are often neglected (Pan 2016; HLPE 2019). The Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centres (CGIAR) Research Programs still focus largely on breeding and efficiency in production systems, rather than expanding its scope to a food system perspective (Biovision and IPES-Food 2020). A study analyzing 728 AgR4D projects with a total budget of 2.56 billion US dollars showed that local and regional value chains, traditional knowledge and cultural aspects of food systems are underrepresented in research programs, while only a handful of projects take a participatory approach to research (Biovision and IPES-Food 2020). The public investment in agroecological approaches is estimated to range between 1% and 1.5% of total agricultural and aid budgets (HLPE 2019). In order to transform the current food system, it is crucial for research projects to address and include key aspects of socioeconomic and political change, such as decent working conditions, gender equality (Biovision and IPES-Food 2020) and the important role of young and highly qualified people.

To tackle these challenges, the research focus should be shifted to agroecological principles, research activities should be better contextualized and funding mechanisms should be adequately altered, providing more funding for systemic, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. This also usually requires longer funding periods.

Besides providing adequate funding for agroecological research, it is also crucial to break down institutional silos and enhance system thinking in research and training. Interdisciplinary courses at the graduate and undergraduate levels should include non-academic actors. Educational structures and programs are already showing signs of evolving towards systems analysis, with several universities recently opening food system centers or units that break down the traditional structures of research. Knowledge on agroecological innovations requires front-end research, but also needs to be combined with “know-how” and “do-how” (Salliou et al. 2019). Therefore, tools and platforms allowing for the transdisciplinary exchange and development of knowledge are key, particularly with young people and women.

It is hence key to provide training that includes practitioner-led learning and to build a culture of accountability in which research is undertaken with and for farmers
as the ultimate beneficiaries. Currently, these agents of change for agroecology are rarely among the recipients of research funding. Farmers' intuition and tacit knowledge, practical know-how and scientific R&D can be harnessed together to yield solutions that are better suited to their particular context and are more quickly implemented.

Public support should be provided to further develop agroecological curricula at colleges and universities and facilitate exchange between experienced and interested stakeholders (from research, civil society, donor organizations and the private sector). Establishing a network of decentralized centers of excellence in agroecology would further reinforce system thinking and enhance exchanges between different knowledge holders (Biovision and IPES-Food 2020; HLPE 2019). New methodologies developed at universities and research centers, such as the co-creation of knowledge and citizen science using digital tools, enhance participation and transdisciplinarity.

Implementing agroecological practices successfully is knowledge-intensive and requires more experimentation and site-specific adaptation than standardized, industrial farming practices (HLPE 2019). This potentially makes agroecological practices attractive to young people, and requires the skills and expertise of a diversity of practitioners and specialists, including farmers, researchers and extensionists. In many parts of the world, private extension services financed by the sales of goods and services are predominant. When it comes to developing extension systems that align with agroecological approaches, publicly funded extension services are crucial. Tackling them requires re-configuring knowledge and extension systems in ways that place a much greater emphasis on participation and social learning, e.g., farmer-to-farmer learning and on-farm demonstrations. Expanding the use of low-cost information and communication technology (ICT), such as interactive radio and the use of apps, videos, and social media, is an effective means to reach large numbers of people, including youths. ICT has the added advantage of being highly customizable to suit specific contexts, while digital tools are also highly versatile. Widening access will also require innovative approaches in the delivery of information, so that the private sector, farmer groups, volunteers, social workers and youth entrepreneurs can become partners in extension and advisory systems (Fabregas et al. 2019).

## 6.2 Working with Markets

Agroecological systems are more diversified in terms of farm activities and tend to yield a greater number of crop or livestock products, but with a smaller volume of each product. This can limit market and processing opportunities and requires higher levels of knowledge and risk-taking. Furthermore, local marketing structures have, in many regions, been replaced by food retail chains, with food producers finding themselves in the weakest position along the value chain.
Only 23% of all agricultural products are traded on international markets, and most food in the world is produced, processed, distributed and consumed within local, national and/or regional food systems (CSM 2016). The Covid-19 pandemic has shown that sustainable local food systems are crucial for maintaining stable access to food when the global system fails. Supporting short supply chains and alternative retail infrastructures with stronger participation and control of more and various food system actors, such as farmers’ markets, fairs, food policy councils, and local exchange and trading systems, may enhance farmers’ livelihoods and increase access to local, sustainably-produced and diverse food (Hebinck et al. 2014). More support should be given to develop local and regional markets, processing hubs and transportation infrastructures that provide greater processing and handling capacities for fresh products from small and medium-sized farmers who adopt agroecological and other innovative approaches, and to improve their access to local food markets (Wezel 2020). Strengthening local food systems depends on enhancing local authorities’ (e.g., municipalities) capacity to design favorable local policies. These, in turn, could work to enhance direct connection between producers and consumers, provide public facilities, support farmers’ associations in building strong local marketing networks, and entrench participatory guarantee systems (PGS) to certify organic and agroecological producers (HLPE 2019).

Farmers (particularly smallholders, women and young people), producer organizations, input providers and businesses transforming their operations based on agroecological principles need access to credit and alternative investment platforms with low capital costs. Not only farmers, but food systems actors in general, require access to secure and low-cost capital to absorb risks (e.g., momentary lower profitability) in the course of converting towards more sustainable business models. Investments in FinTech research that accelerate and facilitate access to transformational capital (e.g., mobile microfinance, peer-to-peer lending platforms and crowdfunding) must be given due priority.

Food prices and the price for food waste should be “right,” internalizing external costs and enhancing positive externalities. This means that both the nutritional value of a food item and its production- and consumption-associated costs along the entire food value chain should be taken into account (FAO 2018c). However, an increase in food prices has a negative impact on the ability of those on low incomes to buy food of appropriate quality. Similarly, the Eat-Lancet Commission states that “food prices should fully reflect the true costs of food.” However, options that support vulnerable population groups and protect them from the negative consequences of the potential increase of food prices need to be considered (Willett et al. 2019). Besides food prices, financial and fiscal incentives of unsustainable production systems also have a significant influence on current food systems. To allow for food system transformation, the creation of a shared understanding of all of the positive and negative externalities of the food system, as well as of the best approaches to defining reduction targets, is crucial (Perotti 2020).
## 6.3 Enhancing Collaboration

Agroecological practices often depend on collective action across a landscape scale, involving multiple farms and a range of actors. Furthermore, agricultural innovations respond better to local challenges when they are co-created through participatory processes and endorsed by local-specific knowledge. Collaboration and coordination across local, regional and national levels is key to supporting the active involvement and self-organization of food system actors such as producers, private sector investors, academia, civil society and governments. There is growing evidence from the literature highlighting the need for collective action and coordination at the local level to create favorable sociotechnical conditions for agroecological transition (Lucas et al. 2019). Agroecological innovations, to be successful and implemented at a larger scale, require mobilizing a growing range of stakeholders with multiple perspectives (Triboulet et al. 2019). However, agroecological farmers often value community cooperation more highly and see it as more important compared to colleagues working in non-agroecological farming systems. This is in line with agroecology principles, in which the links to members of the community for knowledge-sharing and problem-solving are key to strengthening sustainability and resilience (Leippert et al. 2020). Through interactions with other stakeholders and networks, farmers and other agents of change are supported in their efforts to strengthen existing initiatives and further develop collective awareness, identity, and agency around agroecological management issues (Chable et al. 2020). This requires higher levels of coordination and increases transaction costs.

Multi-stakeholder dialogues built on evidence-based arguments can help to bring together different perspectives, as long as they are developed in an inclusive manner (HLPE 2019). Agricultural research projects and partnerships too often remain focused on one-way knowledge transfer via institutes based in the Global North. It is therefore crucial not only to promote a shift towards agroecological research, but also to rebalance North-South power relations through equal research partnerships and direct access to research funding. Additionally, increased funding to build lasting bridges for South-South collaboration is needed. Supporting the emergence of long-term partnerships and coalitions with a focus on agroecology, local ownership, and the meaningful involvement of social movements and farmers’ organizations is equally important. In parallel, the Public-Private Partnership model that is so central to current AgR4D needs to be continually scrutinized with regard to the delivery of benefits vis-à-vis the SDGs (Biovision and IPES-Food 2020).

Social movements associated with agroecology have often arisen in response to agrarian crises and have joined forces to initiate the transformation of agriculture and food systems. Agroecology has become the overarching political framework under which many social movements and peasant organizations around the world assert their collective rights and advocate for a diversity of locally adapted agriculture and food systems mainly practiced by small-scale food producers. These social movements highlight the need for a strong connection among agroecology, the right to
food and food sovereignty. They position agroecology as a political struggle, requiring people to challenge and transform existing power structures (HLPE 2019).

## 6.4 Ensuring Policy Coherence to Create a Conducive Policy Context for Agroecology

To take agroecology to the next level, a solid governance structure, combined with a set of coherent policy measures, is essential (Eyhorn et al. 2019). Laws, regulations, publicity awareness campaigns and fiscal incentives are all part of a framework that should serve society. Many policy measures have negative impacts on the goals of different national strategies and policy objectives such as climate, biodiversity, soil protection, animal welfare, environmental protection, nutrition and health. Current agricultural and trade policies, including subsidy schemes, still favor intensive, export-oriented production of a few crops, as well as the intensive use of fossil fuel and agrochemical inputs, and must be revised to address the multi-functionality of agriculture (Eyhorn et al. 2019; HLPE 2019). The holistic nature of agroecology requires a well-coordinated coherent policy framework and a shift from a production-focused perspective to one that includes new indicators covering nutritional aspects, environmental impact and the long-term stability of the system. Such a holistic accounting of the performance of food production would allow for an evaluation of all of the positive and negative externalities (Perotti 2020).

International trade relations should include or allow for specific tools or mechanisms to foster the marketing of products derived from agroecological systems. Bi- and multilateral trade agreements should not include policies or ask for laws that might hinder agroecological production and even put its central elements, as defined by FAO, at risk.

Government-provided agriculture benefits – at varying degrees – support measures all over the world. In Europe, these are mainly direct payments, which are paid out to farms to support their income. “Public money for public goods” is a claim that environmental politicians and NGOs have been making for 30 years. Fortunately, there is a growing consensus that this would be an effective greening strategy and would bring major benefits to agroecology. Piñeiro et al. (2020) investigated which measures were most effective in promoting sustainability in agriculture. By far, the most effective measures are government-supported eco-schemes in all political, economic and social contexts, worldwide. Education, extension or market incentives (demand) come second. This relates to the fact that the market only settles private goods and services, but not public goods. The important function of state intervention (direct payments, investment subsidies, contributions to research, education and advisory services) is therefore to minimize the conflict of goals between private and public goods and functions. If the funds available for the various policy areas were channeled into agroecology, a huge transformative force would develop very quickly.
One major challenge is that, on average, conversion to agroecological systems typically results in a short-term reduction of yields (Tittonell 2014; WWF 2021) that needs to be compensated for through cost savings, higher product prices or policy support measures to ensure the economic viability of the farms. Additionally, the definition of sustainability in agriculture and food systems must be broadened beyond the efficiency narrative. Sufficiency means reducing resource consumption by adopting sustainable diets, reducing the demand for certain goods (e.g., feedstuff and biofuels produced on arable land), or increasing the demand of goods with relative advantages that cause fewer emissions and less resource depletion under certain situations and in certain locations, and by reducing food waste. Although the efficient use of natural and human-made resources remains important, efficiency alone is often offset by rebound effects (Polimeni et al. 2008) such as higher consumption or wastage. Global mass-flow models show that narratives based on sufficiency can successfully reduce the trade-offs between productivity and eco-stability (Schader et al. 2015; Müller et al. 2017).

Making use of existing public purchasing obligations can provide economic and political opportunities to implement policy and build new and innovative socioeconomic relationships that create sustainable food systems. Public procurement of sustainably-produced food, for example, can support low-income and other groups within schools, hospitals and other public institutions, setting off mutually reinforcing circuits. Interventions that focus on local procurement of sustainably-produced food for school feeding programs, or that target groups vulnerable to food insecurity, so as to realize food sovereignty at the local and state levels, can be effective in addressing FSN while supporting sustainable food systems (Barrios et al. 2020). These initiatives can also support safe, decent, meaningful employment for marginalized groups, including young people and low-income workers within the food system.

International guidance to comprehensively measure outcomes of agroecological farming systems are the Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE), SAFA Guidelines of FAO (2017) or UN System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEAA). Research projects in general, and technology development in particular, should be subjected to a holistic, multi-criteria assessment measured against the elements of agroecology: FAO's TAPE (FAO 2019), the Agroecology Criteria Tool (ACT), the growing body of work on 'true cost accounting' and specific metrics like the LER are at hand (Biovision and IPES-Food 2020). Multi-criteria sustainability assessment tools for farms and food businesses are very helpful in assessing complexity and holistic sustainability and can accelerate transformation processes in agriculture and nutrition (Mottet et al. 2020).

# 7 Conclusions: Contribution of Agroecology to the SDGs

The SDGs recognize the strong interconnectivity among development goals and stress the need for holistic approaches and profound transformation of human activity across multiple dimensions and at multiple scales (Barrios et al. 2020).
Due to the fundamental importance of agriculture, the state of agriculture and food systems directly or indirectly affects all 17 of these goals. Agroecology provides one tool to help build sustainable food systems, and thus contribute to the ambitious targets laid out under the SDGs (Farrelly 2016). In particular, agroecology can contribute to no poverty (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and wellbeing (SDG 3), gender equality (SDG 5), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), climate action (SDG 13) and life on land (SDG 15).

Agroecological approaches are increasingly called upon to play a greater role in contributing to the achievement of sustainable global food systems. Numerous promising examples demonstrating the potential of agroecology to stimulate and drive sustainable transition of food systems around the world were presented in a stakeholder paper (CNS-FAO 2021). If we implement the concept and, at the same time, apply a coherent policy set, agroecology will contribute to sustainable and resilient food production systems that help maintain ecosystems and progressively improve land and soil quality. It will further help in maintaining the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and domesticated animals. Through the promotion of reduced, alternative (non-chemical) and safe application of crop protection products, agroecology can reduce risks associated with agrochemical exposure, thus positively influencing the health of rural workers and consumers.

All of these potential benefits of agroecology mentioned above, combined with long-term productivity, social wellbeing and improved agency, reduced food waste and loss and a sufficiency-oriented agricultural production, require a rethinking of both the indicators and the way in which we measure performance of agricultural and food systems (Mottet et al. 2020). Additionally, a coherent policy framework is necessary that is able to break policy silos and improve governance structures in many countries to allow for increased self-control of the resource base, reduce the dependency of traditional market mechanisms controlled by capital through the construction of new, nested, markets, facilitate a strong backing reliance of high quality of labor, exchange of experiences and the availability of skill-oriented technologies, and establish a high degree of self-regulation at the territorial level (Van der Ploeg 2021). All of these elements are strengthening farming as an interesting, fulfilling profession that is attractive to young people. To allow agroecology to play a role in food system transformation, different governance levels and different departments, teams and stakeholder groups need to closely work together to define the key performance indicators for sustainable food systems and a policy frame aimed at reducing the amount of trade-offs. Promising examples of agroecological practices have developed and spread globally (CNS-FAO 2021), and the increasing awareness of society about the urgency of food system transformation increases the pressure on decision-makers to substantially support the development towards sustainable food systems. Strengthening knowledge systems, working with markets, enhancing collaboration among food system actors and creating an enabling policy environment will be crucial for this development.
References

Aboukhaili R (2014) The rising trend in authorship. Winnow 2(e141832):26907. https://doi.org/
10.15200/winn.141832.26907

Altieri MA, Nicholls CI, Henao A, Lana MA (2015) Agroecology and the design of climate change-
resilient farming systems. Agron Sustain Dev 35(3):869-890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-
015-0285-2

Anderson CR, Bruil J, Chappell MJ, Kiss C, Pimbert MP (2021) Conceptualizing processes of agroecological transformations: from scaling to transition to transformation. In: Agroecology now! Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61315-0_3

Armengot L, Barbieri P, Andres C, Milz J, Schneider M (2016) Cacao agroforestry systems have higher return on labor compared to full-sun monocultures. Agron Sustain Dev 36(4):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0406-6

Barrios E, Gemmill-Herren B, Bicksler A, Siliprandi E, Brathwaite R, Moller S, Batello C, Tittonell P (2020) The 10 elements of agroecology: enabling transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems through visual narratives. Ecosyst People 16(1):230-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1808705

Beausang C, Hall C, Toma L (2017) Food waste and losses in primary production: qualitative insights from horticulture. Resour Conserv Recycl 126:177-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.042

Bellon MR, Ntandou-Bouzitou GD, Caracciolo F (2016) On-farm diversity and market participa-
tion are positively associated with dietary diversity of rural mothers in southern Benin, West
Africa. PLoS One 11(9):e0162535. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162535

Beus C, Dunlap R (1991) Measuring adherence to alternative vs. conventional agricultural para-
digm: a proposed scale. Rural Sociol 56(3):432-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1991.
tb00442.x

Bezner Kerr R, Kangmennaang J, Dakishoni L, Nyantakyi-Frimpong H, Lupafya E, Shumba L, Msachi R, Odei Boateng G, Snapp S, Chitaya A, Maona E, Gondwe T, Nkhonjera P, Luginaah I (2019) Participatory agroecological research on climate change adaptation improves small-holder farmer household food security and dietary diversity in Malawi. Agric Ecosyst Environ 279:109-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.04.004

Bezner Kerr R, Madsen S, Stüber M, Liebert J, Enloe S, Borghino N, Parros P, Munyao Mutyambai D, Prudhon M, Wezel A (2021) Can agroecology improve food security and nutrition? A review. Glob Food Sec 29:100540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100540

Biovision & IPES-Food (2020) Money flows: what is holding back investment in agroecological research for Africa? Biovision Foundation for Ecological Development & International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Money%20Flows_Full%20report.pdf

Bruinsma J (ed) (2003) World agriculture: towards 2015/2030; an FAO perspective. Earthscan Publications Ltd/Taylor & Francis Group, London/New York. http://www.fao.org/3/y4252e/y4252e.pdf

Chable V, Nuijten E, Costanzo A, Goldringer I, Bocci R, Oehen B, Rey F, Fasoula D, Feher J, Keskitalo M, Koller B (2020) Embedding cultivated diversity in society for agro-ecological transition. Sustain 12:784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030784

Chappell MJ, LaValle LA (2011) Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroeco-
logical analysis. Agric Hum Values 28:3-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9251-4

Clark M, Tilman D (2017) Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural produc-
tion systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett 12:064016. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5

CNS-FAO (2016) Working towards sustainable agriculture and food systems. A discussion paper.
Swiss National FAO Committee (CNS-FAO), September 2016

CNS-FAO (2019) Agroecology as a means to achieve the sustainable development goals. A discussion paper. Swiss National FAO Committee (CNS-FAO), February 2019
CNS-FAO (2021) Pathways to advance agroecology. Overcoming challenges and contributing to sustainable food systems transformation. Swiss National FAO Committee (CNS-FAO), March 2021

COAG (2018): Agroecology: from advocacy to action. Discussion paper for the twenty-sixth session of the FAO committee on agriculture on 1–5 October 2018. Rome

CSM (2016) Connecting smallholders to markets. The Civil Society Mechanism (CSM), An analytical guide. http://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1104374/

D'Annolfo R, Gemmill-Herren B, Gräub B, Garibaldi LA (2017) A review of social and economic performance of agroecology. Int J Agric Sustain 15:632–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1398123

Davis AS, Hill JD, Chase CA, Johanns AM, Liebman M (2012) Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLoS ONE 7:e47149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047149

Dury S, Bendjebbar P, Hainzelin E, Giordano T, Bricas N (eds) (2019) Food systems at risk: new trends and challenges. FAO/CIRAD and European Commission, Rome/Montpellier/Brussels. https://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/00080

Edwards MA, Roy S (2017) Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environ Eng Sci 34:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223

Eyhorn F, Muller A, Reganold JP, Frison E, Herren HR, Luttikholt L, Mueller A, Sanders J, Scialabba NEH, Seufert V, Smith P (2019) Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nat Sustain 2:253–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0266-6

Fabregas R, Kremer M, Schilbach F (2019) Realizing the potential of digital development: the case of agricultural advice. Science 336:6471. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay3038

Fanzo J, Hunter D, Borelli T, Mattei F (eds) (2013) Diversifying food and diets – using agricultural biodiversity to improve nutrition and health. Taylor/Francis Group, London/New York. https://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/diversifying-food-and-diets/

FAO (2017) The future of food and agriculture – trends and challenges. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf

FAO (2018a) FAO'S work on agroecology – a pathway to achieving the SDGs. http://www.fao.org/3/i9021en/I9021EN.pdf

FAO (2018b) The 10 elements of agroecology: guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/i9037en.pdf

FAO (2018c) The future of food and agriculture: Alternative pathways to 2050. http://www.fao.org/3/CA1553EN/ca1553en.pdf

FAO (2019) TAPE tool for agroecology performance evaluation 2019 – process of development and guidelines for application. Test version, Rome. http://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/en/c/1257355/

Farrelly M (2016) Agroecology contributes to the sustainable development goals. Farming Matters 32:32–34

Ferrero R, Lima M, Davis AS, Gonzalez-Andujar JL (2017) Weed diversity affects soybean and maize yield in a long term experiment in Michigan, USA. Front Plant Sci 8:236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00236

Geels FW (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc Trans 1:24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002

Gliessman SR (2015) Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems, 3rd edn. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton. ISBN 9781439895610

Godfray C, Garnett T (2014) Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos Trans R Soc Ser B Biol Sci 369:20120273. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0273

Hebinck P, Schneider S, Van Der Ploeg JD (eds) (2014) Rural development and the construction of new markets. Routledge, London. ISBN 9780367869298

HLPE (2019) Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf
HLPE (2020) Issues paper on the Impact of COVID-19 on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). http://www.fao.org/3/cb1000en/cb1000en.pdf

IIED (2015) Summary report of the high-level workshop on scaling up agroecology to achieve the SDGs. https://infohub.practicalaction.org/bitstream/handle/11283/594772/Agroecology_Work shop.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

IPBES (2019) The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystems services. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). https://ipbes.net/fr/node/35274

IPCC (2019) Climate change and land. IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

Jones AD, Shrinivas A, Bezner Kerr R (2014) Farm production diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity in Malawi: findings from nationally representative data. Food Policy 46:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.02.001

Khourya CK, Bjorkmanc AD, Dempewolfd H, Ramirez-Villegas J, Guarino L, Jarvis A, Rieseberg LH, Struik PC (2014) Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111: 4001–4006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313490111

Lechenet M, Dessaint F, Py G, Makowski D, Munier-Jolain N (2017) Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms. Nat Plants 3:17008. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.8

Leclère D, Obersteiner M, Barrett M, Butchart SH, Chaudhary A, De Palma A, DeClerck FA, Di Marco M, Doelman JC, Dürauer M, Freeman R (2020) Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585:551–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y

Leippert F, Darmaun M, Bernoux M, Mpheshea M, Müller A, Geck M, Herren M, Irungu W, Nyasimi M, Sene JM, Sow M (2020) The potential of agroecology to build climate-resilient livelihoods and food systems. FAO/Biovision, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0438en

Liebman MZ, Schulte-Moore LA (2015) Enhancing agroecosystem performance and resilience through increased diversification of landscapes and cropping systems. Elementa 3(000041). https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000041

Lucas V, Gasselin P, Van Der Ploeg JD (2019) Local inter-farm cooperation: a hidden potential for the agroecological transition in northern agricultures. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 43:145–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1509168

Mäder P, Fliesbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296:1694–1697. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1071148

Meemken EM, Qaim M (2018) Organic agriculture, food security, and the environment. Ann Rev Resour Econ 10:39–63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023252

Mottet A, Bicksler A, Lucantoni D, De Rosa F, Scherf B, Scopel E, López-Ridaura S, Gemmil-Herren B, Bezner Kerr R, Sourisseau J-M, Petersen P, Chotte J-L, Loconto A, Tittonell P (2020) Assessing transitions to sustainable agricultural and food systems: a Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE). Front Sustain Food Syst 4:579154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.579154

Müller A, Schader C, Scialabba NEH, Bruggemann J. Isensee A. Erb KH, Smith P, Klocke P, Leiber F, Stolze M, Niggli U (2017) Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat Commun 8:1290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w

Muthini D, Nzuma J, Nyikal R (2020) Farm production diversity and its association with dietary diversity in Kenya. Food Secur 12:1107–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01030-1

Nemes, N. (2009) Comparative analysis of organic and non-organic farming systems: a critical assessment of farm profitability. FAO. http://saveoursoils.com

Pan G (2016) The cost of malnutrition: why policy action is urgent. Tech Brief No 3. http://www.glopan.org/sites/default/files/pictures/CostOfMalnutrition.pdf
Pardey PG, Chan-Kang C, Dehrner SP, Beddow JM (2016) Agricultural R&D is on the move. Nat News 537(7620):301. https://doi.org/10.1038/537301a

Perotti, A. (2020): Moving towards a sustainable Swiss food system: an estimation of the true cost of food in Switzerland and implications for stakeholders. Master thesis, ETH Zurich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000473289

Piñeiro V, Arias J, Dürr J, Elverdin P, Ibáñez AM, Kinengyere A, Morales Opazo C, Owoo N, Page JR, Prager SD, Torero M (2020) A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat Sustain 3:809–820. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y

Polimeni JM, Mayumi K, Giampietro M, Alcott B (2008) The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84407-462-4

Pretty J, Morison JI, Hine RE (2003) Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agric Ecosyst Environ 95:217–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00087-7

Pretty JN, Noble AD, Bossio D, Dixon J, Hine RE, Penning de Vries FWT, Morison JIL (2006) Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environ Sci Technol 40:1114–1119. https://doi.org/10.1021/es051670d

Rosset PM, Machín SB, Roque Jaime AM, Ávila Lozano DR (2011) The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud 38:161–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2010.538584

Salliou N, Muradian R, Barnaud C (2019) Governance of ecosystem services in agroecology: when coordination is needed but difficult to achieve. Sustain 11:1158. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041158

Schader C, Müller A, Scialabba NE, Hecht J, Isensee A, Erb KH, Smith P, Makkar HPS, Klocke P, Leiber F, Schwegler P, Stolze M, Niggli U (2015) Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. J R Soc Interface 12:20150891. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0891

Seibert, I.G., Sayeed, A.T., Georgieva, Z., and Guerra, A. (2019): Without feminism, there is no agroecology. https://www.righttofoodandnutrition.org/files/rtfn-watch11-2019_eng-42-50.pdf

Seufert V, Ramankutty N (2017) Many shades of gray—the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci Adv 3:e1602638. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602638

Sibhatu KT, Qaim M (2018) Review: meta-analysis of the association between production diversity, diets, and nutrition in smallholder farm households. Food Policy 77:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.04.013

Smith A, Raven R (2012) What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Res Policy 41:1025–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012

Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O'Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O, Howden M, McAllister T, Pan G, Romanenkov V, Schneider U, Towprayoon S, Wattenbach M, Smith J (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B 363:789–813. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2184

Smolik JD, Dobbs TL, Rickerl DH (1995) The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reduced-till farming systems. Am J Altern Agric 10:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0889189300006081

Tittonell PA (2013) Farming systems ecology. Towards ecological intensification of world agriculture. Inaugural lecture. Wageningen University. https://edepot.wur.nl/258457

Tittonell PA (2014) Ecological intensification of agriculture—sustainable by nature. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 8:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006

Triboulet P, Del Corso JP, Duru M, Galliano D, Gonçalves A, Milou C, Plumecocq G (2019) Towards an integrated framework for the governance of a territorialised Agroecological transition. In: Bergez JE, Audouin E, Therond O (eds) Agroecological transitions: from theory to practice in local participatory design. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01953-2_7
Tuck SL, Winqvist C, Mota F, Ahnström J, Turnbull LA, Bengtsson J (2014) Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 51: 746–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12219

UNCTAD/UNEP (2008) Organic agriculture and food security in Africa. United Nations, New York. https://unctad.org/en/Docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019) World Urbanization prospects: the 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). United Nations, New York. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf

Uphoff N (2007) Agroecological alternatives: capitalising on existing genetic potentials. J Dev Stud 43(1):218–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380601055700

Van der Ploeg JD (2021) The political economy of agroecology. J Peasant Stud 48:274–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1725489

Van der Ploeg JD, Barjolle D, Bruil J, Brunori G, Madureira LMC, Dessein J, Drag Z, Fink-Kessler A, Gasselin P, de Molina MG, Gorlach K (2019) The economic potential of agroecology: empirical evidence from Europe. J Rural Stud 71:46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.003

Wezel A (2020) Agroecological approaches and other innovations. In: Herren H, Haerlin B, IAASTD+10 Advisory group (eds) Transformation of our food systems. The making of a paradigm shift. https://www.globalagriculture.org/transformation-of-our-food-systems.html

Wezel A, Goris M, Bruil J, Félix GF, Peeters A, Bärberi P, Bellon S, Migliorini P (2018) Challenges and action points to amplify agroecology in Europe. Sustain 10:1598. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051598

Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman D, DeClerck F, Wood A, Jonell M, Clark M, Gordon LJ, Fanzo J, Hawkes C, Zurayk R, Rivera JA, De Vries W, Majele Sibanda L, Afshin A, Chaudhary A, Herrero M, Agustina R, Branca F, Lartey A, Fan S, Crona B, Fox E, Bignet V, Troell M, Lindahl T, Singh S, Cornell SE, Srinath Reddy K, Narain S, Nishtar S, Murray CJL (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393:447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

Wood S, Cowie A (2004) A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser production. Research and Development Division, State Forests of New South Wales Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting. http://www.sciencethearth.com/uploads/2/4/6/5/24658156/2004_wood_a_review_of.greenhouse_gas_emission_factors.pdf

World Resources Institute (2018): Creating a sustainable food future. Synthesis report, December 2018. https://www.wri.org/research/creating-sustainable-food-future-0

WWF (2021) Farming with biodiversity towards nature-positive production at scale. WWF International, Gland

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>
# A New Paradigm for Plant Nutrition

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

Achim Dobermann, Tom Bruulsema, Ismail Cakmak, Bruno Gerard, Kaushik Majumdar, Michael McLaughlin, Pytrik Reidsma, Bernard Vanlauwe, Eva Wollenberg, Fusuo Zhang, and Xin Zhang

## 1 Introduction and Background

World agricultural output has grown at an average annual rate of about 2.2% during the past 60 years, although with huge variations among countries (Fuglie 2018). Similar growth will be required in the near future to feed a growing world population and improve rural livelihoods. Over the longer term, slowing population growth, changing diets, reduced food losses and waste, and increased nutrient recycling will

Prepared by members of the Scientific Panel on Responsible Plant Nutrition France.

A. Dobermann (✉)

International Fertilizer Association, Paris, France

e-mail: adobermann@fertilizer.org

T. Bruulsema

Plant Nutrition Canada, Guelph, Canada

I. Cakmak

Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey

B. Gerard

Mohammed VI Polytechnic University, Ben Guerir, Morocco

K. Majumdar

African Plant Nutrition Institute, Benguerir, Morocco

M. McLaughlin

Fertiliser Technology Research Centre, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

P. Reidsma

Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

B. Vanlauwe

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya
ease the pressure to produce more food and utilize more natural resources in that process.

Historically, economic development has been faster in regions of the world where fertilizer use and crop yields rose in parallel (McArthur and McCord 2017). The increasing access to mineral fertilizers has been one of the main factors in feeding the rapidly growing world population (Smil 2001). Rapid increases in crop yields also prevented a much larger expansion of agriculture into natural lands that would have otherwise occurred (Stevenson et al. 2013). On the other hand, in many regions, intensive farming to support the emerging food consumption patterns has resulted in nutrient-related externalities that are difficult to manage, such as land degradation, biodiversity loss, unsustainable water withdrawal, eutrophication of many freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems, increased greenhouse gas emissions or inequality among farmers (Balmford et al. 2018).

Anthropogenic perturbation levels of global nitrogen and phosphorus flows may already exceed limits that are deemed to be a safe operating space for humanity (Steffen et al. 2015). While agricultural activities at the farm level account for 9-4% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all human activities, a full accounting of the global food system, including land use change and fertilizer production, raises the figure to 21-37% (Rosenzweig et al. 2020). Human-induced emissions of nitrous oxide (N₂O), which are dominated by fertilizer additions to croplands, have increased by 30% since the 1980s (Tian et al. 2020). Current food systems also favor the cultivation of staple crops at the expense of more micronutrient-rich food crops. While hunger and malnutrition have significantly declined in recent decades, they have stubbornly persisted in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions, including micronutrient-related deficiencies that particularly affect women and children (Pingali et al. 2017). The number of people who do not have access to sufficient and nutritious food may continue to rise again due to conflict, climate extremes, economic downturns, or outbreaks of diseases (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020).

It has been estimated that $12 trillion in hidden health, environmental and socio-economic costs are associated with the global food system, which is larger than the system's output at current prices (The Food and Land Use Coalition 2019). While food security through increasing crop and animal productivity will remain hugely important in light of an expected population of about 9.5 billion by 2050 (Vollset et al. 2020), it is no longer the only objective. The transition to a more sustainable global food system requires all stakeholders to manage nutrients and their entire life
cycle in a more holistic manner. Future plant nutrition solutions will have to address
multiple global and regional challenges related to nutrients in the food system.

In that context, there are ten higher-level questions that need to be resolved within
the next 20 years:

1. **How can we overcome the current global nutrient imbalance?** For many decades, rising crop and livestock production was closely coupled with increasing input of nitrogen and other nutrients, as well as international trade of feed and food. This has led to a global divide, ranging from large nutrient input-output surpluses and environmental pollution in some regions to large nutrient deficits in others (Fig. 2). On a global scale, how can future growth in primary crop production be decoupled from growth in fertilizer consumption? What are the country-specific targets and roadmaps for fertilizer use and nutrient use efficiency that will enable that?

2. **What are the key measures to double or triple crop yields in Africa with increasing and balanced nutrient inputs?** Africa has massive nutrient deficits that must be overcome in order to increase crop yields and achieve higher levels of food security within one generation (van Ittersum et al. 2016). The average fertilizer use in sub-Saharan Africa is about 20 kg nutrients/ha and exceeds 50 kg/ha in only few countries, which is far below what is required to boost crop production and replenish soil fertility after decades of depletion (Fig. 1). Fertilizer alone will not be sufficient to lift crop yields, but it is a key ingredient to trigger an African Green Revolution (Vanlauwe and Dobermann 2020), which must be based on good information, incentives for the efficient use of nutrients, and specific measures to tackle the persistent forms of malnutrition as well.

3. **What data-driven technologies, business solutions and policies will accelerate the adoption of more precise nutrient management solutions by farmers?** In many countries, farmers apply too great an amount of nutrients because they are relatively cheap or because they do not want to risk loss of yield. In other situations, farmers apply insufficient nutrients or in the wrong formulations because of lack of affordability, access, knowledge or data. Many good examples exist worldwide as to how to overcome this, but only a few have led to breakthroughs on a larger scale.

4. **Can nutrient losses and waste along the whole agri-food chain be halved within one generation?** Current estimates suggest that, at the global scale, only around 20% of applied nitrogen compounds may reach useful products, with up to 80% lost to the environment in different forms (Sutton et al. 2012). There are huge variations in nutrient losses among countries and their food systems that can be addressed through various means, including greater recovery of nutrients from various waste streams in forms that allow for safe recycling back to crop production.

5. **How can nutrient cycles in crop and livestock farming be closed?** Globally operating demand drivers and supply chains have caused a separation and
<figure><img src="image_70.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Global trends in crop nitrogen output, input from fertilizer and other sources, and annual nitrogen surplus (left), and a map of nitrogen surplus or deficit in 2015 (top, kg N/ha). N surplus is defined as the total N input to cropland minus N harvested as crop products (Zhang et al. 2015); it is expressed as million tons (Mt) in the left panel, and as kg per hector land area in the top panel, indicating the potential pressure due to N lost from crop production. (Source: Xin Zhang and Guolin Yao, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)</figcaption></figure>

concentration of crop and livestock farming, resulting in spatially disconnected, leaky nutrient cycles. The massive growth of the livestock sector has led to low nutrient use efficiency, increased waste and large greenhouse gas emissions. Global livestock supply chains account for one-third of all human-induced nitrogen emissions (Uwizeye et al. 2020). Sustainable livestock production includes more pasture-based systems and re-integration of crop and livestock farming to utilize animals for what they are good at: converting by-products from the food system and forage resources into valuable food and manure (van Zanten et al. 2019). What future farm structures, technologies and supply chains will enable that?

6. **How can we improve soil health?** Soils are vital for growing crops, but they also support other essential ecosystem services, such as water purification, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling and the provision of habitats for biodiversity. Carbon and nutrient inputs are important triggers for improving soil health in crop production, which also increases the resilience of farming systems to extreme climatic events. Sequestration of atmospheric CO₂ in soils can
contribute to reducing global warming and improving soil health, but requires continuous organic matter inputs and nutrient inputs (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus) to form stable soil organic matter. How can a holistic plant nutrition approach manage macro- and micronutrients for high crop productivity and nutrient use efficiency, but also utilize biological N fixation, optimize carbon storage and turnover, increase soil biodiversity, and avoid soil acidification or other forms of degradation?

7. **How should we manage the nutrition of crops in changing climates?** Climate change has positive, as well as negative, impacts on the nutritional quality of crops, many of which are not yet well understood (Soares et al. 2019). Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) may increase crop yields, but also cause declining nutrient concentrations and nutrient use efficiency of food crops. Global warming will increase the risk of crop stresses such as drought, heat or high radiation, for which balanced plant nutrition plays particular roles in mitigation. Changes in seasonality, precipitation and extreme weather events will also affect the timing and efficiency of nutrient uptake, requiring integration of nutrient advisories with early warning and climate information systems.

8. **What are realistic options and targets for reducing fertilizer-related greenhouse gas emissions?** All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5 °C or well below 2 °C require land-based mitigation and land use change (IPCC 2019). Across the plant nutrition sector, low-emission “green” fertilizer production and transportation technologies, novel fertilizer formulations, inhibitors, and genetic solutions to nitrification inhibition or fixing atmospheric N, as well as more precise nutrient application and agronomic field management, offer numerous opportunities to reduce nutrient-related emissions of CO₂ and N₂O – provided that the surrounding policies and market conditions enable it.

9. **How can cropping systems deliver higher quality, more nutritious food?** More than two billion people in the world are affected by various forms of micronutrient malnutrition. The world's major cropping systems are designed to provide calories, protein and a number of other nutrients or bioactive compounds. A handful of micronutrient-poor crops dominate the global food and feed chains and have often decreased crop diversity or displaced traditional crops such as pulses. What agricultural practices can be deployed to improve human nutrition, including plant nutrition solutions (Welch et al. 2013)?

10. **How can we better monitor nutrients and implement high levels of sustainability stewardship?** Digital technologies offer great potential for better monitoring, analysis, benchmarking, reporting and certification of sustainability efforts across the entire nutrient chain. This would improve transparency, traceability, quality control, and sustainability assessment in the whole food sector, and it is also critical for public sector engagement and evidence-based policymaking. How, for example, can the International Code of Conduct for the Sustainable Use and Management of Fertilizers (FAO 2019) or criteria for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) be implemented by countries and industry? Is there a need for a new standard on sustainable production and the use of nutrients?
## 2 What Can Be Done?

Human development, biological process requirements and mass balance principles make it clear that mineral nutrients, including fertilizers, will continue to be major ingredients of future food systems. **It is critical to develop integrated and targeted plant nutrition strategies and practices that minimize tradeoffs between productivity and the environment – and are viable in the farming and business systems of different regions, nations and localities.** Integration in this context has several dimensions, including a multi-nutrient food system approach, greater recycling and utilization of all available nutrient sources, alignment with other agronomic and stewardship practices, and compliance with high sustainability standards.

The new paradigm of **responsible plant nutrition** encompasses a broad array of scientific and engineering know-how, technologies, agronomic practices, business models and policies that directly or indirectly affect the production and utilization of mineral nutrients in agri-food systems. Following a food system approach, responsible plant nutrition aims to:

A. Improve income, productivity, nutrient efficiency and resilience of farmers and the businesses supporting them

B. Increase nutrient recovery and recycling from waste and other underutilized resources

C. Lift and sustain soil health

D. Enhance human nutrition and health through nutrition-sensitive agriculture

E. Minimize greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient pollution and biodiversity loss

In a nutshell, responsible plant nutrition will contribute to a more nature-positive approach to food production and consumption. It does not aim to blindly copy nature, but, following science, it does adapt and integrate key agroecological principles (FAO 2018) in a tailored manner. Implementing the new paradigm involves six interdependent actions (Fig. 2):

**Action 1: Sustainability-driven nutrient policies, roadmaps, business models and investments that create added value for all actors and beneficiaries in the nutrient chain.** Nutrient policies and roadmaps must be tailored to the specific food systems in every country, including ambitious goals for nutrient use, losses and efficiency. Specific targets and priorities for managing nutrients will vary, depending on each country's history and sustainable development priorities. Progressive science-based monitoring, stewardship (International Plant Nutrition Institute 2016) and certification schemes will guide performance and reward farmers and businesses for innovation, reduction of nutrient losses, improvement of soil health,
<figure><img src="image_71.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** The five interconnected aims of responsible plant nutrition, and six key actions to take</figcaption></figure>

enhancement of biodiversity and provision of other ecosystem services. Differentiated strategies will also lead to regional shifts in global fertilizer use, reducing nutrient surpluses and ensuring that more nutrients are moved to where they are most lacking, particularly in many parts of Africa (Zhang 2017).

**Action 2: Data-driven, more precise crop nutrition solutions.** Knowledge-driven digital solutions and disruptive technologies will allow for tailoring nutrient applications to local needs in an increasingly precise manner. Besides high-tech solutions for commercial farming, “low-tech” site-specific nutrient management approaches have shown consistent, large increases in crop yields and profits and nutrient use efficiency in many crops grown by smallholder farmers in Asia and Africa (Dobermann et al. 2002; Rurinda et al. 2020). They now need to be upscaled to millions of farmers through digitally supported advisory systems and business solutions.

**Action 3: Circular economy solutions for greater nutrient recovery and recycling.** Crop-livestock integration, less food waste, use of by-products and increased nutrient recovery and recycling are key measures to optimize nutrient use efficiency across the full food chain (Fig. 3). Political incentives, novel technologies and shifts in behavior will drive greater nutrient recycling from multiple waste streams, as a key contribution to circular, bio-based economies. Such circular systems need to be safe and healthy for animals, humans and the environment, but they also allow for the creation of novel business models, including side-streams within the agricultural sector for the up-cycling of materials and the nutrients that they contain. Improved full-chain nutrient flow monitoring, life-cycle analysis, benchmarking and certification will support the development of such solutions.

**Action 4: Nutrition-sensitive farming – producing food crops with higher nutritional value to address persistent, as well as emerging, mineral nutrient deficiencies.** Besides dietary diversification and food interventions, plant nutrition
<figure><img src="image_72.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Major nutrient flows in circular crop-livestock-human systems. Red arrows indicate fertilizer inputs into the system. Fertile land is primarily used to produce food for humans and some supplementary feed for livestock, as are crop residues (orange arrows). Grassland is primarily used for livestock, including grazing. By-products and waste are recycled back to agriculture or used to make new bio-based products (brown arrows). Leakages out of the circular system are minimized. (Source: Re-drawn and modified from van Zanten et al. 2019)</figcaption></figure>

solutions are part of strategies for addressing the triple burden of undernutrition, micronutrient malnutrition, overweight/obesity and other non-communicable diseases. Depending on the local context, nutrition-sensitive crop production may include more diverse crop rotations, as well as biofortification of staple crops with micronutrients through breeding and/or fertilizers (Cakmak and Kutman 2018). The latter involves the targeted use of fertilizer products that deliver micronutrients of importance to crops, animals and humans. Besides essential plant nutrients such as iron or zinc, this may also include nutrients that are of particular importance to animals and humans, such as iodine (Fuge and Johnson 2015) or selenium (Alfthan et al. 2015).
**Action 5: Energy-efficient, low-emission fertilizers.** Fertilizers will increasingly be produced in an environmentally-friendly manner, and they will embody greater amounts of knowledge as to how to control the release of nutrients to the plant. Significant reductions in pre-farm greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved through low-carbon emission fertilizer production. Various new technologies are already being piloted to produce “green ammonia” from renewable, carbon-neutral energy sources, as well as to use it for energy storage and transport. A new “ammonia economy” could feed and power the world in a whole new, decentralized manner (Rouwenhorst et al. 2019). Innovation in fertilizer formulation will lead to environmentally-friendly fertilizers that maximize nutrient capture by the crop and minimize losses of nutrients (Chen et al. 2018).

**Action 6: Accelerated, more open innovation systems for faster translation of new ideas into practice.** Future research and innovation systems need to foster the co-creation and sharing of knowledge for rapid development and deployment of new know-how and technologies. This requires more openness and coordinated action from public and private sector players. A massive cultural change is needed in science and science funding, towards a problem-focused and leaner science approach, transdisciplinary collaboration, entrepreneurship, and early engagement with users – including the full diversity of farmers.

Who needs to do what?

Responsible plant nutrition is a complex and global challenge, which can only be tackled through concrete action by all those directly involved in the nutrient cycle, as well as those influencing it (Fig. 4).

**Policymakers** at all levels need to create clear, science-based and harmonized regulatory frameworks for nutrients, but also dynamic policies that incentivize innovation in technologies, practices and business models. They must set out a clear vision for national or regional roadmaps with sound targets for nutrients, nutrition and environmental indicators. They can drive changes in food consumption, as well as provide progressive incentives for the adoption of better practices by

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** The agri-food chain from a nutrient management perspective. Blue boxes show actors who directly contribute to nutrient use and losses at different stages. Red arrows indicate greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient losses into the environment and waste that can happen along all parts of the chain. All opportunities to reduce emissions and losses must be exploited, while also increasing nutrient recovery and return to farming and industry (green arrows). The grey box shows actors who influence the major actors, drive innovation or set the societal framework for action. (Source: Modified from Kanter et al. 2020)</figcaption></figure>
farmers. Policies need to properly balance food production and environmental goals. Technical assistance and extension services must be supported adequately to promote sustainable practices. Policymakers also need to ensure that farmers all over the world have affordable access to the internet and digital services.

**The global fertilizer industry** has recently recognized the need for a sustainability- and innovation-driven plant nutrition approach as its core business strategy (International Fertilizer Association (IFA) 2018). Fertilizer companies will have to increasingly become providers of integrated plant nutrition solutions based on new business models that do what is right for people and the planet. Sustainability and innovation, including transparent monitoring and reporting, will drive the transformation strategy for the entire industry, for every product and solution sold. Revenue growth primarily needs to be driven by growth in the performance value offered to farmers and society, not in the volume of fertilizers sold.

**Farmers, farm advisers and service providers** carry the primary responsibility for improving nutrient use efficiency, reducing nutrient losses, recycling nutrients and promoting soil health at the farm scale, which has huge implications at larger scales. They need to be able to fully adapt and adopt new knowledge, technology, and services, and they need to be rewarded for good practices. Many farmers are entrepreneurs, and thus willing to change, and they are also aware of their role as stewards of land, water, climate and biodiversity. But doing things differently requires lowering risks and other adoption barriers.

**Food traders, processors and retailers** have enormous power to influence nutrient cycles, both through influencing what consumers eat or drink and how it is being produced. Vertically integrated, data-driven and more transparent supply chains that meet sustainable production standards and reduce production losses will become more widespread, including more direct sourcing from farmers. These developments offer numerous opportunities for implementing more holistic approaches to nutrient management. Monetizing such sustainable production practices is both a key challenge and an opportunity.

**Consumers** will drive significant changes in plant nutrition through changes towards healthier diets, as well as an increasing emphasis on food that is produced in a more sustainable manner. Specific trends will differ among regions and income groups. On a global scale, changes in food behavior may be relatively slow and will also be partly compensated for by growing food consumption due to rising populations and income growth in low and middle income countries. However, an immediate responsibility of consumers is to reduce excessive meat consumption, waste less food and ensure recycling of the waste that does occur.

**Utility service providers and waste processors** are an important and relatively new category of actors in the nutrient cycle, but their role will increase substantially in the coming years. Particularly in densely populated areas, their needs and actions will increasingly co-define how farming and nutrient management will be effected. This requires deepening the collaboration with other groups of actors and jointly developing a common understanding, as well as common standards to meet.

**Investors:** Investment in plant nutrition research and innovation will need to increase massively in order to meet the complex plant nutrition challenges we face.
Public, private and philanthropic investors should increasingly invest in technologies, businesses and organizations that support key elements of the new paradigm, including creating a growing ecosystem of startup companies and other enterprises. Use of blended public and private capital can de-risk and leverage more private investment.

**Scientists:** Science and engineering will underpin all efforts to achieve the multiple objectives of the new plant nutrition paradigm, but the entire science culture must change too, towards new ways of working that stimulate new discoveries and achieve faster translation into practice. Greater focus on explicit pathways to agro-nomic applications, reality checks and rigor in claims of utility are needed, as well as more sharing of know-how and critical resources, more open innovation and more entrepreneurship.

**Civil society organizations** play significant roles in the new paradigm through informing the public, grassroots mobilization, monitoring, alerting and influencing, and inclusive dissemination of new technologies and practices. This is a big responsibility, which should follow an evidence-based approach. The co-development of concrete solutions in partnership with government, industry, science and farmers should replace the all too prevalent emphasis on single issues or controversial debates.

What will success look like?

Compared to where we are in 2020, the following concrete outcomes can be achieved within one generation, by 2040:

1. Widely accepted standards for quantifying and monitoring nutrients along the food supply chain inspire solutions for improving overall nutrient use efficiency, increasing recycling and reducing nutrient waste across the whole agri-food system. Ambitious targets, policies and investments stimulate collective actions by governments, businesses, farmers and other stakeholders towards sustainable, integrated, and tailored plant nutrition solutions.

2. On a global scale, crop yield growth meets food, feed and bio-industry demand and outpaces growth in mineral fertilizer consumption, while cropland expansion and deforestation have been halted. Global crop nitrogen use efficiency – the nitrogen output in products harvested from cropland as a proportion of nitrogen input – increases to 70%.

3. Through responsible consumption, increased recycling, and better management practices, nutrient waste along the food system is halved. Nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses in hotspots are reduced to safe levels that minimize eutrophication and other environmental harm.

4. Soil nutrient depletion and carbon loss are halted. Forward-looking policies and investments trigger changes in farming systems and management practices that increase soil health, including soil organic matter. Regional soil nutrient deficits are reduced substantially, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where fertilizer use has tripled and crop yield has at least doubled, including improved nutritional outputs. Millions of hectares of degraded agricultural land are restored, including
through the use of mineral and organic fertilizers and nutrient-containing waste or by-products.

5. Extreme forms of chronic hunger and nutrient-related malnutrition are eradicated through integrated strategies that include the targeted use of micronutrient-enriched fertilizers and nutrient-biofortified crops. A new generation of more nutritious cereals and other staple crops is increasingly grown by farmers, driven by consumer and market demand. Policy and decision-makers support mineral fertilization strategies for meeting specific human nutritional needs where markets do not provide the needed incentives.

6. The fertilizer industry follows rigorous and transparent sustainability standards for the entire life cycle of its products and business operations. Greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production and use are reduced by at least 30% through increased energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage and other novel technologies and products. At least 10% of the world's fertilizer-N is produced from green ammonia with very low or zero carbon emission.

7. R&D investments in plant nutrition research and innovation by public and private sector are tripled compared to present levels. Many companies spend 5% or more of their gross revenue on research and innovation. Collaborative, open innovation approaches allow for scientific discoveries to become quickly translated into practical solutions and knowledge. Innovative, value-oriented business models drive growth throughout the industry.

8. Consumers appreciate the benefits of plant nutrients, including mineral fertilizers as a primary nutrient source. A nutrient footprint standard with high visual recognition informs consumer choices. Information on improvement of soil health and nutrient balances is widely available, and their linkage to the mitigation of air, water and climate issues will be broadly acknowledged.

9. Farmers all over the world have access to affordable, diverse and appropriate plant nutrition solutions, and they are being rewarded for implementing better nutrient management and stewardship practices that increase their prosperity and enable them to exit poverty traps. Customized crop nutrition products and solutions account for at least 30% of the global crop nutrition market value.

So far, we have failed to achieve the goals stated above, despite many scientific and technical solutions that have existed for decades. Achieving it now, within one generation, will require a far more concerted effort by everyone involved, from the fertilizer industry to farmers and consumers of food and other agricultural products. Fast action – grounded in long-term sustainability thinking – is needed to facilitate the transition towards a new paradigm for plant nutrition.

## References

Alfthan G et al (2015) Effects of nationwide addition of selenium to fertilizers on foods, and animal and human health in Finland: from deficiency to optimal selenium status of the population. J Trace Elem Med Biol 31:142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2014.04.009
Balmford A et al (2018) The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nat Sustain 1: 477-485. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0138-5

Cakmak I, Kutman UB (2018) Agronomic biofortification of cereals with zinc: a review. Eur J Soil Sci 69:172-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12437

Chen J et al (2018) Environmentally friendly fertilizers: a review of materials used and their effects on the environment. Sci Total Environ 613-614:829-839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2017.09.186

Dobermann A et al (2002) Site-specific nutrient management for intensive rice cropping systems in Asia. Field Crops Res 74:37-66

FAO (2018) The 10 elements of agroecology. Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/i9037en.pdf

FAO (2019) International code of conduct for the sustainable use and management of fertilizers. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/ca5253en/ca5253en.pdf

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020. Available at http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9692en/

Fuge R, Johnson CC (2015) Iodine and human health, the role of environmental geochemistry and diet, a review. Appl Geochem 63:282-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.09.013

Fuglie KO (2018) Is agricultural productivity slowing? Glob Food Sec 17:73-83. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.gfs.2018.05.001

International Fertilizer Association (IFA) (2018) IFA 2030 scenarios. Digging deeper, thinking harder, planning further. Available at https://www.fertilizer.org/Public/About_IFA/IFA2030. aspx

International Plant Nutrition Institute (2016) 4R plant nutrition manual: a manual for improving the management of plant nutrition, metric version. IPNI, Norcross

IPCC (2019) Climate change and land. IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terres- trial ecosystems. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

Kanter DR et al (2020) Nitrogen pollution policy beyond the farm. Nat Food 1:27-32. https://doi. org/10.1038/s43016-019-0001-5

McArthur JW, McCord GC (2017) Fertilizing growth: agricultural inputs and their effects in economic development. J Dev Econ 127:133-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2017. 02.007

Pingali P, Mittra B, Rahman A (2017) The bumpy road from food to nutrition security – slow evolution of India's food policy. Glob Food Sec 15:77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017. 05.002

Rosenzweig C et al (2020) Climate change responses benefit from a global food system approach. Nat Food. 1:94-97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0031-z

Rouwenhorst KHR, van der Ham AGJ, Mul G, Kersten SRA (2019) Islanded ammonia power systems: technology review & conceptual process design. Renew Sust Energ Rev 114:109339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109339

Rurinda J et al (2020) Science-based decision support for formulating crop fertilizer recommenda- tions in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Syst 180:102790

Smil V (2001) Enriching the earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the transformation of world food production. The MIT Press, London

Soares JC, Santos CS, Carvalho SMP, Pintado MM, Vasconcelos MW (2019) Preserving the nutritional quality of crop plants under a changing climate: importance and strategies. Plant Soil 443:1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04229-0

Steffen W et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Stevenson JR, Villoria N, Byerlee D, Kelley T, Maredia M (2013) Green Revolution research saved an estimated 18 to 27 million hectares from being brought into agricultural production. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:8363-8368. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208065110
Sutton M A et al. (2012) Our nutrient world: the challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution. Available at https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/our-nutrient-world-challenge-produce-more-food-and-energy-less-pollution

The Food and Land Use Coalition (2019) Growing better: ten critical transitions to transform food and land use. Available at https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/global-report/

Tian H et al (2020) A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature 586:248–256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2780-0

Uwizeye A et al (2020) Nitrogen emissions along global livestock supply chains. Nat Food 1(7): 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0113-y

van Ittersum MK et al (2016) Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:14964–14969. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610359113

van Zanten HHE, van Ittersum MK, de Boer IJM (2019) The role of farm animals in a circular food system. Glob Food Sec 21:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.06.003

Vanlauwe B, Dobermann A (2020) Sustainable intensification of agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: first things first! Front Agr Sci Eng 7:376–382. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2020351

Vollset SE et al (2020) Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet 396(10258):1285–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2

Welch R M, Graham RD, Cakmak I (2013) Linking agricultural production practices to improving human nutrition and health. Expert paper written for ICN2 Second International Conference on Nutrition Preparatory Technical Meeting, 13–15 November, Rome, Italy. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-as574e.pdf

Zhang X (2017) A plan for efficient use of nitrogen fertilizers. Nature 543:322–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/543322a

Zhang X et al (2015) Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 528:51–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15743

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

Mario Herrero, Daniel Mason-D'Croz, Philip K. Thornton, Jessica Fanzo, Jonathan Rushton, Cecile Godde, Alexandra Bellows, Adrian de Groot, Jeda Palmer, Jinfeng Chang, Hannah van Zanten, Barbara Wieland, Fabrice DeClerck, Stella Nordhagen, Ty Beal, Carlos Gonzalez, and Margaret Gill

# 1 Introduction

There is growing global consensus of the need to transform food systems in order to achieve critical global goals at the intersection of human and planetary well-being. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) stress that, to meet future needs, we need to use land more sustainably, minimise negative impacts on the environment, and seek opportunities to restore lands that have lost nutrients and/or biodiversity. Simultaneously, it is crucial to provide all people with access to a more nutritious

M. Herrero (✉)

Cornell Global Development, Cornell Atkinson Centre for Sustainability. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

e-mail: Mario.Herrero@cornell.edu

D. Mason-D'Croz

Cornell Global Development, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University. Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

P. K. Thornton

CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya

J. Fanzo · A. Bellows

Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

J. Rushton

Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

C. Godde · J. Palmer

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, Australia

A. de Groot

Impact Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
diet, and hence future food systems must provide a diverse range of affordable foods to enable all people to have access to diets of high nutritional quality.

The livestock sector is an important part of these challenges, since, on one hand, it is a major user of land, but, on the other hand, it provides micronutrient-dense food with high-quality protein. Here, we provide a synthesis of the current understanding of the dynamics of the livestock sector in terms of use of natural resources, trade between countries and the synergies and trade-offs caused by the changing nature of the demand and supply of ASF (including milk, meat, eggs, and fish in this study). We discuss the kinds of policies, governance processes and institutions that might minimise negative interactions and maximise positive synergies. We conclude with a brief exposition of the possible implications for the international agricultural research agenda, along with eight priority actions that need to be deployed simultaneously and in combination to ensure that livestock contribute to sustainable food systems, leaving no one behind.

## 2 Background and Trends

Analyses of trends of the livestock sector suggest that, as incomes increase and societies urbanise, per capita consumption of livestock products increases (Delgado et al. 1999). This, together with increases in population, means that the total demand for livestock products would grow substantially. This phenomenon, while mostly true, hides substantial heterogeneity in terms of the types of livestock products that

J. Chang

College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, China

H. van Zanten

Farming Systems Ecology Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

B. Wieland

International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Institute of Virology and Immunology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

F. DeClerck

Agricultural Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bioversity International, Rome, Italy

EAT Norway, Oslo, Norway

S. Nordhagen · T. Beal

Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Geneva, Switzerland

C. Gonzalez

Cornell Global Development, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

M. Gill

School of Biological Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
are likely to increase in demand and the locations of consumption growth. Below, we
provide clarity on the dynamics of ASF demand and supply.

## 2.1 Trends in Animal Source Food Demand: 1990–2015

Averaged globally, over the last 25 years, per capita food demand of all ASF increased by more than 40 kg/person/year (FAOSTAT 2018). However, this number hides substantial variation across regions and by commodity within ASFs, with several different trends operating in opposing directions (Fig. 1). For example, while there was a nearly 35% increase in per capita meat demand (+11.27 kg/person/year) and total per capita meat demand increased for all regions between 1990 and 2015, this increase was driven by large increases in demand for poultry and pork, which saw increases of 106 and 26%, respectively.

Global demand for ruminant meat (beef and mutton), however, has followed a different trajectory, with per capita demand having remained near 1990 levels

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Change in animal source food demand in the period 1990–2015 (kg/person/year). (Source: Based on authors’ calculations from FAOSTAT (2018). All regional definitions follow FAOSTAT definitions. Regions are inclusive of selected countries (i.e., Eastern Asia includes China), which are reported individually to highlight key trends)</figcaption></figure>
(changing by less than 1 kg/person/year on average globally). Within the beef trend, we still see substantial variation regionally, with most regions exhibiting much bigger declines in beef demand than the global number would suggest.

There is much less diversity of trajectories in the trends for poultry. Per capita poultry demand has increased, with different magnitudes, in all regions. The smallest increase was in Eastern Africa and the United States of America, 27% and 32%, respectively, in per capita demand of poultry meat. All other regions experienced double the per capita demand of poultry meat. Regional pork demand trends are more variable, but resemble poultry more so than beef.

Figure 1 shows the changes in animal source food demand in the period 1990–2015 (kg/person/year) in various regions.

## 2.2 The Role of Trade in Meeting Demand for Animal Source Foods

The last few decades have seen substantial increases in international trade in ASF, with important regional differences. The value of exports globally has nearly tripled, from around 59 in 1990 to almost 174 billion US$ by 2010, although total trade value represents less than 20% of global production (FAO 2019). Meat, in value terms, has contributed nearly two-thirds of the value of exports of livestock products globally.

Most trade in ASFs is within the same region of origin, with most imports coming from nearby countries, for example, Europe exports to Europe, as shown in Fig. 2. There are, however, a number of dominant trading countries that trade between continents (Fig. 2; for example, intraregional bovine meat exports are dominated by the Southern Cone of South America (most of the green outside of the Latin American region row in Fig. 2), particularly Brazil, Australia (in the East Asian and Pacific region, which is blue), and the United States of America (in the North American region, which is red)). Small ruminant export is dominated by Australia and New Zealand (in the East Asian and Pacific region, which is blue), which are the primary sources of imports for most countries. Europe and, to a lesser extent, North America are the primary exporting regions supplying the bulk of traded intraregional pork. Intraregional trade in poultry is dominated by Brazil (in Latin America, which is green) and the United States of America (in the North American region, which is red).

Trade in ASF, in volume terms, is small compared to trade of feed. Trade in meat and processed meat products accounted for less than one tenth of the volume of trade in feed grains (Galloway et al. 2007). These dynamics are likely to intensify as more feed will be necessary to respond to growing demand for pork and poultry in regions currently importing feeds. This comes with substantial consequences for land use and environmental impacts, as, depending on the land used to produce the feed, it could lead to substantial embedded environmental impacts in overall ASF production. A clear example: if imports of soybeans increase in Asia, this could fuel
<figure><img src="image_77.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Composition of 2010 regional imports of meat commodities by source of imports. The source of imports follow the colours given in the final column (i.e., imports from Europe are coloured orange, those from North America are red, etc.), so, for example, 91% of imports of bovine meat in Europe comes from other countries in Europe, whereas 62% of imports of bovine meat in the former Soviet Union comes from countries in Latin America (FAO 2019)</figcaption></figure>

deforestation in Brazil, a primary soybean provider. In other regions, other environmental dimensions would take precedence over emissions, with the potential for substantial losses of biodiversity and disruption of water cycles in places (see Searchinger et al. 2015, for example for Sub-Saharan Africa).
## 2.3 The Response of Production to Meet the Increase in Demand: The Monogastric “Explosion,” Intensification, and Expansion Dynamics

Since the 1970s, there has been a ‘monogastric explosion,’ with rates of growth in animal numbers often exceeding 4% per year, and meat and egg production, in cases, reaching over 6–7% per year, globally. Improvements in crop yields, improved feeding rations with high-quality feedstuffs, higher production efficiency, favourable prices and the involvement of private industry in driving these dynamics all played a significant role, initially in Europe, North America, and Oceania, and later in Latin America and parts of Asia (FAO 2006).

Since 1990, global production of ASF (kg) has increased by more than 60%, an increase of almost 2% per year (FAOSTAT 2018). Figure 3 shows the regional variations in these patterns. The largest production increases were observed in Africa and Asia. Higher-income regions, on the other hand, grew at a slower rate, with ASF production in Europe actually declining by about 15% from 1990 levels.

Across ASF commodities, the fastest growth in production was for poultry meat, which has nearly tripled globally since 1990 (Fig. 3). All regions, on average, saw increased production, with the global median increase in production across all countries being 125% above 1990 levels (~3.3%/year growth).

Eggs, pork, and dairy production grew at a slower pace, with production increasing by 103%, 72%, and 56%, respectively. Beef and lamb production globally grew by about 1/4 and 1/3 the rate of poultry, respectively, since 1990. Lamb production in low-and middle-income regions grew at a much faster rate than the global average, with small ruminant production increasing at rates similar to pork in Africa and Asia. However, in developed countries in North America, Europe, and Oceania, there were declines in production.

Substantial increases in production efficiency, often associated with intensification, have also taken place. Intensification occurred at different rates in different parts of the world and, in some cases, led to reductions in animal numbers. For example, the United States of America produces 60% more milk with 80% fewer cows now than it did in the 1940s (Capper et al. 2009) through a substantial change in genetics, feeding and housing systems. Substantial intensification, as well as expansion, of the livestock sector has occurred primarily in Latin America and Asia. This is in stark contrast with Sub-Saharan Africa, where productivity has remained stagnant for decades, with all of the growth in production being due to increases in animal numbers. These general observations hide substantial heterogeneity, which we disentangle below.
<figure><img src="image_78.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Production trends of animal products (kg) from 1990 to 2015. (Source: Based on authors' calculations from FAOSTAT 2018)</figcaption></figure>
## 2.4 Different Livestock Products and Production Systems, Different Dynamics

The production increases in the past few decades follow different trajectories for ruminants than for pork and poultry in smallholder or industrial operations (Fig. 4). Between 2000 and 2011, global milk and meat production increased by 28% and 11%, respectively (Fig. 4). Mixed crop-livestock systems contributed to the majority of bovine milk and meat production.

At the global level, these increases in total production were mainly driven by the increases in animal numbers (dairy: +19%, meat: +10%), followed by the increases in animal productivities (kg of livestock products/TLU/year, milk: +9%, meat: +1%). In arid and humid regions, or in low-income countries, total production increases were mainly driven by the increases in animal numbers, rather than the increases in productivity. This reflects that the feeding systems have remained static, being reliant on animals grazing and harvesting energy from available land, instead of greater utilisation of new forage crops or concentrate feeds. Similarly,

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 4** Average changes in dairy bovine milk and meat bovine productivities (kg/TLU/year) and animal numbers in grazing systems (a) and mixed crop-livestock systems (b) by climate and income group. Period: 2000–2011. Data calculated based on productivity and animal number estimates by country, livestock system and climate type from (Herrero et al. 2013b). The climate category Arid includes semi-arid systems such as northern Australia. Grazing and mixed crop-livestock systems as defined by (Robinson et al. 2011), income groups as defined by (World Bank 2016). (Figure adapted from Godde et al. 2018)
improvements in animal health services in these production systems have been
limited by patchy disease control, in particular, over remote areas.

In contrast, in temperate regions and high-income countries, total production increases were mainly driven by the increases in productivity, rather than the increases in animal numbers. On average, high-income countries showed a decrease in total animal numbers (−4%) while maintaining modest productivity increases (under 1% per year).

Increases in dairy productivity (28%) only outstripped growth in animal numbers (9%) as the source of growth in dairy production between 2000 and 2011 in the highlands of low-and middle-income countries. This evidence of intensification is unsurprising, considering that the majority of Research and Development and extension efforts have been directed towards these smallholders, mostly mixed dairy systems (Waithaka et al. 2006; Herrero et al. 2010, 2014).

## 2.5 The Role of Smallholders in the Production of ASF

Livestock production supports about 650 million low-income small-scale producers in lower-and middle-income countries (FAO 2009). Livestock are responsible for 17–47% of the value of agricultural production in the regions of lower-and middle-income countries (Herrero et al. 2013a) and contribute income to 68% of lower-and middle-income country households (FAO 2009), while also playing important cultural roles (Thornton 2010; Herrero et al. 2013a). While men are often most represented in livestock production and fishing, women tend to be highly active in the processing and sale of animal products (Herrero et al. 2013a). At the same time, ASF-related livelihoods do not necessarily entail high-quality jobs. For example, ASF producers and fishing communities in lower-and middle-income countries sometimes do not earn enough to eat their own production (Thow et al. 2017; Annan et al. 2018; Ravuvu et al. 2018). Women in livestock value chains in particular may lack appropriate recognition and remuneration (Agarwal 2018), and denial of women's access to shared ASF resources, such as fisheries, creates power imbalances that expose women to abuse (Fiorella et al. 2019). A move towards healthier, more plant-rich diets could create more jobs than animal agriculture-based employment, with potential improvements in gender equality and occupational safety (Saget et al. 2020).

**Bovine Milk and Meat** Globally, farms smaller than 20 ha produce 45% of bovine milk and close to 37% of bovine meat (Herrero et al. 2017) (Fig. 5). However, important regional differences exist. Large farms (>50 ha) dominate bovine milk (>75%) and meat (>80%) production in North America, South America, and Australia and New Zealand, which are regions with high levels of exports of these products.

Conversely, farms smaller than 20 ha produce the majority (>75%) of bovine
milk and meat in China, East Asia Pacific, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan
<figure><img src="image_80.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** The production of bovine milk and meat by farm size and region. (Source: Data from Herrero et al. 2017)</figcaption></figure>

Africa, and West Asia and North Africa. Very small farms (<2 ha) are of particular importance in China, where they still produce more than 60% of bovine milk and meat. These very small farms are also of importance in East Asia Pacific, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, where they contribute more than 25% of bovine milk and meat production.

The role of smallholders in the future is uncertain. For dairy, a sustainably intensified smallholder sector could be the engine of production growth, as there are still large yield gaps in these systems. Furthermore, with demand both growing and primarily satisfied by local markets (formal and informal), smallholders should benefit from improved cash flow derived from growth in dairy. For intensification to occur, the growth of markets, improved access to inputs and services, and increased adoption of key technological packages need to happen at a faster pace than previously anticipated (McDermott et al. 2010; Godde et al. 2018).

For beef, the situation is different. In the absence of a clear increase in demand per capita, and with small farm output largely dependent on increased numbers of animals, it is likely that operation size will be more of a constraint. Nevertheless, smaller scale production resulting from culled animals in diversified farming systems may continue to be economically viable, even if it is unlikely to be the main source of income or livelihoods.

**Pigs and poultry** The contribution of smallholder systems to monogastric production, based on data from Herrero et al. (2013b), shows the importance of smallholder monogastric systems as a source of pork, poultry and eggs in several regions, notably, South and Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (Fig. 6).

Gilbert et al. (2015) found a negative relationship between the proportion of extensively raised chickens and pigs and the GDP per capita of different countries. Although there are large variations between countries, this suggests that, as economies grow, the smallholder monogastric sector, while still important in some countries, will tend to reduce in importance as income grows and conditions become more favourable for private industry to industrialise the sector. The reduction in transaction costs and vertical integration will drive this transition, as it has in other regions.
<figure><img src="image_81.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** The proportion of pork, poultry and eggs from smallholder systems in different global regions. (Herrero et al. 2013b)</figcaption></figure>

## 3 Implications of the Historical Supply and Demand Dynamics of ASF for Land Use and Other Environmental Metrics

Livestock account for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from food systems, through methane from enteric fermentation and manure management, carbon dioxide from land use change, and nitrous oxide from manure management (Herrero et al. 2016; Tubiello et al. 2021). However, livestock now use 62% less land and emit 46% fewer greenhouse gas emissions to produce one kilocalorie compared with 1961. Nevertheless, improved livestock productivity has required an increase of 188% in the use of nitrogen fertilisers derived from fossil fuels to increase feed production (Davis et al. 2015). Despite productivity improvements, due to increased demand, the aggregate environmental impacts of livestock have continued to grow, which will require substantial further reductions in the sector's environmental footprint.

Animal production practices, depending on type and location, can have beneficial or detrimental effects on biodiversity (Herrero et al. 2009; Barange et al. 2018). In particular, livestock-induced land use conversion is a major environmental and human rights concern in some areas (De Sy et al. 2015). Many intact ecosystems, notably, carbon-dense and biodiversity-rich tropical forest biomes, have been converted to pasture and feed crops for animals (FAO and UNEP 2020). These ecosystems are essential to climate change mitigation (Lennox et al. 2018). Intact ecosystems currently occupy half of the ice-free surface of the Earth (Dinerstein et al. 2017), and this degree of intactness has been proposed as a global limit (Newbold et al. 2016; Dinerstein et al. 2017; Leclère et al. 2018; Willett et al. 2019a, b), implying that an urgent halt to land use conversion is needed. In extensive rangeland practices in grassland and savanna biomes, where large grazers (e.g., bison) have
been lost, ruminant livestock can be an important means of biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation (Olff and Ritchie 1998; Griscom et al. 2017).

Resource use varies widely by type of ASF and production practice. Beef production tends to be the greatest user of land and energy, followed by pork, poultry, eggs, and milk production (de Vries and de Boer 2010).

Resource use also varies by production system and setting. In many cases, livestock can be reared on lands of low opportunity cost, without competing with croplands or other land uses (van Zanten et al. 2018). Keeping livestock in grazing systems may have some environmental benefits, such as conservation of grassland biodiversity, although such relationships are complex and context-specific (FAO 2009). Animal production systems are often essential to circular production systems (Poux and Aubert 2018). However, the intensive production of any animal, including pigs and poultry, has substantial environmental impacts, especially for surrounding communities and waterways, that must be considered (Wing and Wolf 2000; Burkholder et al. 2007; Godfray et al. 2018).

## 3.1 Animal Source Food Consumption Trends: The Three Key Storylines

We review the 2020 projections made by Delgado and others towards the end of the 1990s, contrasted against what is happening currently in the livestock sector. We also summarise the storylines that emerge from these trends. Globally, their projections of total meat and milk production saw a difference of only -12% and -5% from what current trends in FAOSTAT suggest. By commodity, the projections were particularly accurate for pork, with larger deviations for beef and poultry. We observe a similar story with the per capita demand projections. Overall, the projections are good, with a difference of only 4 and 10 kg/person/year for meat and milk, respectively. However, we can see that, similar to the beef and poultry projections, there are offsetting deviations that are masked when we only look at the global number (Table 1). Here, the key deviations are in projections for China and India (Table 2).

<table><caption>**Table 1** Comparing global animal source food production (million metric tonnes) in Delgado et al. (1999) to FAOSTAT (2018)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">FAOSTAT</th><th>Delgado et al. (1999)</th><th>% Difference</th></tr><tr><th>1990</th><th>2013</th><th>2020<sup>a</sup></th><th>2020</th><th>2020</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Beef</td><td>55</td><td>68</td><td>72</td><td>82</td><td>14%</td></tr><tr><td>Pork</td><td>69</td><td>113</td><td>125</td><td>122</td><td>-2%</td></tr><tr><td>Poultry</td><td>41</td><td>109</td><td>127</td><td>83</td><td>-35%</td></tr><tr><td>Meat</td><td>178</td><td>309</td><td>346</td><td>304</td><td>-12%</td></tr><tr><td>Milk</td><td>538</td><td>753</td><td>813</td><td>772</td><td>-5%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>2020 projection is a linear regression based on FAO production values from 1990–2013</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Comparing per capita consumption of animal source food (kg/person/year) in Delgado et al. (1999) to FAOSTAT (2018)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="6">FAOSTAT</th><th colspan="2">Delgado et al. (1999)</th><th colspan="2">% Difference</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Meat</th><th colspan="3">Milk</th><th rowspan="2">Meat</th><th rowspan="2">Milk</th><th rowspan="2">Meat</th><th rowspan="2">Milk</th></tr><tr><th>1990</th><th>2013</th><th>2020<sup>a</sup></th><th>1990</th><th>2013</th><th>2020<sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>China</td><td>25</td><td>62</td><td>73</td><td>6</td><td>33</td><td>43</td><td>60</td><td>12</td><td>-18%</td><td>-72%</td></tr><tr><td>India</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>53</td><td>85</td><td>92</td><td>6</td><td>125</td><td>44%</td><td>36%</td></tr><tr><td>World</td><td>33</td><td>43</td><td>46</td><td>77</td><td>90</td><td>95</td><td>39</td><td>85</td><td>-16%</td><td>-11%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reviewing these projections highlights the fact that the evolution of the global livestock sector over the past couple of decades can be summarised in a few storylines:

(a) First, demand for poultry has been the main global driver of increased meat consumption, with per capita consumption having nearly doubled since 1990. This represents a mix of changes in demand and supply.

(b) Second, per capita dairy consumption in high-income regions has stayed constant since 1990, with any growth in total consumption being driven by changes in population. Low-and middle-income regions have seen substantial increases in dairy consumption, with this being driven by increases both in population and in per capita consumption of dairy products, with the largest increase observed in China.

(c) Finally, increases in global beef demand is a story of two countries, China and Brazil, which account for nearly 93% of the 11 million metric tonne increase in global beef demand, even as, globally, per capita beef consumption has been declining or become stagnant in most countries. The key role of China and Brazil in the global beef sector was already identified by Delgado (2003) in an update of their 1999 projections.

## 3.2 Animal Source Foods and Human Nutrition and Health: The Need for Moderation, Not Avoidance

In general, healthy plant-rich diets, including flexitarian, or vegetarian options, have lower climate and land impact than those high in ASF; their water and nutrient impacts depend on the practices used (Hallström et al. 2015; Aleksandrowicz et al. 2016; Frehner et al. 2021). Reduction in ASF, notably red meat consumption has been shown to reduce environmental impacts (e.g., on climate, land, and biodiversity), with some studies suggesting that global climate and biodiversity targets are only achievable through reduced consumption (Tilman and Clark 2014; Leclère et al. 2018; Springmann et al. 2018; Clark et al. 2020). For example, transition to healthy plant-rich diets that include some meat could reduce food-related emissions

<footnote><sup>a</sup> 2020 projection is a linear regression based on FAO production values from 1990–2013</footnote>
by nearly half, setting them on track to meet the 1.5 °C climate target (Clark et al. 2020). In contrast, a global transition to increased consumption of ASF, notably red meat, is not feasible within recommended environmental limits (Springmann et al. 2018).

Diets that include few or no ASFs, including vegetarian and vegan diets, have been shown to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases (Tilman and Clark 2014; Springmann et al. 2016). Diets with diverse plant-sourced foods can meet protein requirements (Young and Pellett 1994), and vegetarian diets can meet adult micronutrient needs (Walker et al. 2005). However, plant-based foods do not necessarily equal healthy foods: many highly processed foods are fully plant-based (e.g., highly processed snack foods and sugar-sweetened beverages), yet have been associated with poor health outcomes (Hu 2013; Marlatt et al. 2016; Mozaffarian 2016).

Controversy exists regarding dietary recommendations for some ASF, and this has had a polarising effect on many scientific and food sector discussions. Confounding this debate are statements regarding global calls to reduce ASF consumption (Willett et al. 2019a, b), masking regions where increased intake would have positive impacts on health; creating confusion in the health impacts of a diversity of ASF; causing a lack of clarity (and sometimes unrealistic assumptions) on which foods would be replacing ASF in diets; and, finally, leading to the under-consumption of health-promoting foods (Afshin et al. 2019).

While ASF consumption and its subtypes are highly variable geographically, the under-consumption of whole grains, fruits, nuts and seeds, vegetables, and seafood, together with excess sodium, remains the largest risk of disease and mortality attributed to diets, according to the Global Burden of Disease Dietary Risk Factors study (Afshin et al. 2019). For many in high-income settings, increasing the consumption of protective foods while remaining within caloric recommendations may require reduced consumption of some ASF. For others, particularly resource-constrained populations in low-and middle-income countries, increasing consumption of certain ASF (alongside consumption of these other protective foods) could have health benefits. However, there are limitations within the underlying data, uncertainty regarding these estimates and significant heterogeneity in consumption among subpopulations (Beal et al. 2019).

## 3.3 Animal Source Foods and Undernutrition

ASFs are considered complete sources of protein that provide all nine essential amino acids in adequate quantities and are the only dietary source of vitamin B12. In addition, ASFs are nutrient dense and have higher bioavailability of key nutrients such as iron, vitamin A, and zinc compared to plant source foods, although nutrient content may vary depending on the type of ASF. Consumption of these foods may be particularly essential for young children, adolescent girls, and pregnant or lactating women, as these individuals have increased nutrient requirements due to biological
processes (Neumann et al. 2002; Murphy and Allen 2003; Semba et al. 2016; Beal et al. 2017). With regards to undernutrition, a number of studies have assessed the role of ASFs in linear growth for children under the age of five and micronutrient deficiencies in both women and children. Recent systematic reviews have identified limited evidence regarding the association between consumption of ASF and linear growth during early childhood (Eaton et al. 2019; Pimpin et al. 2019; Shapiro et al. 2019). These reviews concluded that substantial heterogeneity in definitions of ASFs might have led to inconsistent results. On the other hand, a cross-sectional analysis of Demographic Health Surveys found a strong association between ASF consumption and reduced incidence of stunting, and consumption of a diversity of ASF had an additive effect on that relationship (Headey et al. 2018). Another study found a strong correlation between ASF intake and reductions in stunting in Nepal and Uganda, with dairy consumption having the strongest correlation (Zaharia et al. 2021). In addition, in a longitudinal sample of children in rural Nepal, increased ASF consumption was associated with greater child development scores (Miller et al. 2020). Of the ASF, small pelagic fish, molluscs, large pelagic fish, salmonids and carp tend to have higher nutritional density than most terrestrial ASF, with ruminant meats following (Golden et al. 2021). A diversity of foods, including of ASF, within healthy ranges remains a standard recommendation, particularly for nutritionally vulnerable populations.

## 3.4 Animal Source Foods and the Risk of Non-communicable Diseases

The relationship between ASF and chronic diseases is highly dependent on the type of ASF and what other foods are substituted for ASF in the diet (e.g., red meat vs. other lean protein or red meat vs. ultra-processed plant-based foods). Cohort studies provide modest evidence that increased consumption of low-fat dairy and seafood may be protective against cardiovascular disease (Bernstein et al. 2010; Soedamah-Muthu et al. 2011; Schwingshackl et al. 2017a, b). On the other hand, the association between unprocessed and processed red meat consumption and diet-related chronic diseases is still debated among scientists. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified processed meat as a group 1 carcinogen (other examples: tobacco smoking and outdoor air pollution) and unprocessed red meat as a probable carcinogen (IARC 2015). There is strong evidence to suggest that consumption of processed meat (cured, salted, preserved) is associated with increased risk of cancer on average (Bouvard et al. 2015), although the precise mechanisms and differences among subtypes require more study. The relationship between unprocessed (fresh) red meat and health is more controversial and needs further research. Some epidemiological cohort studies have found positive associations between unprocessed red meat consumption and, respectively, overall mortality (Schwingshackl et al. 2017a, b; Zheng et al. 2019), type-2 diabetes (Pan et al.
2011; Schwingshackl et al. 2017a, b), cardiovascular disease (Qian et al. 2020), and cancer (Chan et al. 2011; Bouvard et al. 2015), while other studies have not found any relationship between unprocessed red meat and adverse health outcomes (Johnston et al. 2019; Iqbal et al. 2021). While more research is needed, most studies that do suggest higher adverse health risk with red meat consumption find an association at doses exceeding 1–2 servings/week (Mozaffarian 2016), which is consistent with many national dietary recommendations (Gonzalez Fischer and Garnett 2016; Herforth et al. 2019; USDA and USHHS 2020).

**In summary,** populations consuming high amounts of red meat, particularly in processed forms, would benefit from reduced consumption to improve health and sustainability. This mostly applies to consumers in higher-income countries, but also to a growing number in lower-and middle-income countries, where the burden of diet-related non-communicable diseases is growing rapidly. For those vulnerable to undernutrition (whether in lower-and middle-income countries or higher-income countries), the nutrient contribution of minimally processed ASF may be beneficial in reducing risk of micronutrient deficiency and promoting growth (Murphy and Allen 2003).

# 4 Essential Actions for Ensuring Livestock's Contribution to Sustainable Food Systems

This section examines some alternative or additional actions that would need to take place for livestock to contribute to sustainable food systems, while addressing critical aspects of social equity, poverty and other social goals. As discussed, this will require different actions depending on the context, including:

* Consumption of ASF at a level appropriate to meet nutritional needs.

* A reduction in consumption of red and processed meat for populations with high risks of diet-related non-communicable diseases or in the context of an unbalanced diet.

* The enabling of increased consumption by nutritionally vulnerable populations that need higher levels of nutrients, including pregnant women, the elderly, children and undernourished populations, particularly those in lower-and middle-income countries.

Several studies have quantified the potential environmental gains of changing dietary patterns. This area of work started from the need to quantify the greenhouse gas mitigation potentials of changing diets (Stehfest et al. 2009), and has been expanded considerably to include health impacts and several additional environmental metrics (Tilman and Clark 2014; Leclère et al. 2018; Springmann et al. 2018; Willett et al. 2019a, b). As an example, Fig. 7 summarises the technical mitigation potential of changing diets.
<figure><img src="image_82.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7** The technical greenhouse gas mitigation potential of changing diets according to a range of scenarios examined in the literature. (Mbow et al. 2019)</figcaption></figure>

The features of these studies show that:

1. The upper bound of the technical mitigation potential of demand-side options is about 7.8 Gt CO₂-eq per year (no consumption of animal products scenario) (Stehfest et al. 2009).

2. Many dietary scenario variants have been tested. Key variants include target kilocalorie levels (i.e., 2500 kcal per capita per day), notions of healthy diets, swaps between animal products (red vs. white meat) and/or vegetables, and stylised diets (Mediterranean, flexitarian, etc.). All fit roughly between the current emissions and the Stehfest et al. (2009) upper boundary.

3. The main impact of reducing the consumption of ASFs is to reduce the land footprint of livestock. This land-sparing effect, coupled with alternative uses of the land (i.e., negative emissions technologies), leads to a large mitigation potential. Many of the other environmental impacts are also associated with the land-sparing effect (i.e., biodiversity, Leclère et al. 2018).

4. The largest technical potential comes from reductions in ruminant meat consumption (the most inefficient sub-sector), as most scenarios try to trigger land sparing (reduction of carbon dioxide emissions) as the key mechanism for reducing emissions.

5. Reductions in livestock product consumption, especially red meats, could have both environmental and health benefits (Tilman and Clark 2014; Willett et al. 2019a, b).

6. Fully vegan diets could meet calorie and protein requirements, but can also be deficient in key nutrients (vitamin B12, folate, Zinc), a concern for vulnerable groups, in particular, those without access to dietary supplements. Therefore, diets with some level of animal products may be necessary.

7. The economic mitigation potential of changing diets is not known. This is a crucial research area, together with mechanisms for eliciting behavioural changes.
8. Most scenarios so far have taken kilocalories as the currency for changing diets; few have dealt with protein or micronutrients, a factor that, from the livestock and healthy diet perspectives, seems like a necessary step.

9. Very few key examples of legislation and policy-induced shifts in consumption exist. There are some examples that have been shown to promote increases in the consumption of fruits and vegetables (Garnett et al. 2015).

10. The social and economic costs of reduced demand for ASFs are unknown. Notably, there is little information on the impacts on farmers' income, employment, alternative labour markets, reductions in agricultural GDP, etc.

11. Methodological advances are needed to elicit simultaneously the environmental, health and socio-economic impacts of reduced consumption.

Attached to livestock production is an enormous amount of wealth generation, employment, value chains and famers' livelihoods. Impacts on these are seldomly studied, yet they are crucial to creating convincing policy cases for a contraction of livestock product demand. Global studies that have begun to include some of these critical feedbacks are only now starting to emerge (Mason-D'Croz et al. 2020).

From a nutritional perspective, livestock's contribution to healthy diets is not so much about their kilocalories as their micronutrients and protein. It is essential to include these in future research. Diets in these scenarios are also too 'globalised,' and more realistic, and culturally sensitive, regional variants will need to be examined. The differentiated impacts of ASF consumption and production across population cohorts will require that future analysis begin to better recognise the heterogeneity of populations (rural/urban, under-or over-nourished, gender, age, or by age groups), if they are to provide necessary information to improve the targeting of future food policies.

Mitigating greenhouse gases from livestock systems is more feasible in some contexts than in others, and this largely depends on the livelihood objectives of livestock farmers (Herrero et al. 2016). Nonetheless, many practices that improve productivity or the production system as a whole can lead to direct and indirect greenhouse gas mitigation co-benefits. These should be pursued.

The supply side options for mitigating greenhouse gases in the livestock sector have been the subject of recent reviews (Smith et al. 2007, 2014; Hristov et al. 2013; Herrero et al. 2016; Roe et al. 2019). These options look to:

- Reduce the enteric methane of ruminants.

- Reduce nitrous oxide through manure management of both ruminants and monogastrics.

- Implement best animal husbandry and management practices (all), which would have an effect on major greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide).

- Directly sequester carbon from pastures (ruminants)

- Generally improve land use practices that also help in enhancing soil carbon sequestration.
Excluding land use practices, Herrero et al. (2016) found that these options have a technical mitigation potential of 2.4 GtCO₂eq/year. However, they also found that the economic feasibility of these practices is low (10–15% of the technical potential, or less than 0.4 GtCO₂eq/year). The largest mitigation opportunities for the livestock sector occur when livestock are considered holistically as part of the agriculture, forestry and land use sectors (Havlík et al. 2014).

# 5 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations in the Context of the Food Systems Summit

Our study has demonstrated that the dynamism of the livestock sector provides a range of avenues for change, some more relevant to smallholders than others, some more amenable to public funding than others, and some more likely to alleviate negative environmental impacts than others. Picking the most effective and desirable solutions will be essential for stakeholders associated with the livestock sector to achieve the desired impacts on sustainable food systems. The balance between social and environmental goals will need to be carefully evaluated. The avenues for growth, the trade-offs and the potential actions can be summarised below.

**Smallholder dairy:** The evidence suggests that demand for milk is growing fast, and that, at least in highland or high potential areas, productivity per animal is increasing due to the adoption of better practices, like feeds, animal health management and genetics. These systems can be competitive, but issues surrounding land fragmentation and feed availability need closer attention. Testing and implementing transformational feed technologies or engaging in developing systems that could increase in circularity, such as through increased biomass recycling, sound like important next steps to ensure high-quality feed at low environmental costs in these systems. This needs to go beyond previous work on crop residues (e.g., Blummel and colleagues) and may need transdisciplinary partnerships with other sectors to develop these new biomass streams and to adjust breeding and feeding strategies. This, in turn, would also lead to reduced pressures on land and to the exploration of other greenhouse gas mitigation avenues, beyond those explored to date (improved feeds, manure management). Eventually, this could contribute to the national mitigation action plans of specific countries.

**The smallholder pork and poultry sector:** our synthesis has shown that, while there are countries where smallholder pork and poultry makes an important contribution to the supply of these products, in the coming decades, much of the growth in production is likely to come from industrial production, as integrated supply chains emerge and private sector engagement increases. This suggests that investing in these smallholder systems is, at best, a medium-term strategy that could provide livelihood benefits as these producers diversify or identify new exit strategies. Identifying transition options for these producers in the future seems necessary.
From an international public good perspective, the future of feed in fuelling the large demand for pork and poultry is a critical researchable issue, if the feed is to be sourced sustainably. Biomass value chains, old and new, need to be evaluated, developed and promoted to ensure that competition for food with humans is minimised. Here, again, circular feed sources, regulations for including a minimum amount of recycled feed, and new feed sources (superfeeds from industrial production or others) need to be developed, along with professional arguments in favour of local industries taking on these enterprises in a well-planned manner.

For monogastrics, there are a lot of researchable issues, including on antimicrobial resistance, with priority areas being:

1. Monitoring inputs: what inputs are used in the system in terms of feed, antimicrobials and other aspects that affect the health of the animals and have implications for the health of producers, consumers and those working in the food chain.

2. Surveillance: establishing systems that generate information on current and emerging diseases, antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance.

3. Assessment: the economic burden of livestock health and wealth (see https://animalhealthmetrics.org) as a basis to identify interventions that impact positively on the economic outcomes of livestock production, as well as minimising impacts on the environment and public health.

A central element of a livestock agenda in relation to environmental trade-offs is related to the identification of entry points for engaging in the beef sector. On one hand, the existing data show that most of the growth in red meat production has been obtained through increases in animal numbers, while intensification has been influential in only a few countries. Consumption per capita is stagnant, or decreasing, in most countries, and most of the demand is driven by population growth. At the same time, reducing red meat consumption could lead to substantial greenhouse gas mitigation, as well as reductions in pressure on land and biodiversity. Producing red meat only on lands of low opportunity costs, or as a by-product of the dairy industry, would have the lowest environmental impacts.

Identifying the best levels of consumption in relation to other dietary elements for different population groups should be a high priority for the Food Systems Summit, as well as identifying ways to decouple red meat production from land, or create niche products for very specific sets of consumers through labelling systems and certification.

The livestock sector will change, voluntarily, or as a result of forces external to it. If sustainability concerns are of paramount importance, a critical research area is to develop economic incentive systems (price premiums) and regulations to pay for reduced emissions, watershed protection, biodiversity protection and others; and to internalise these in true cost or true-pricing schemes, supported by adequate regulatory and fiscal measures.
References

Afshin A et al (2019) Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 393(10184):1958–1972. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8

Agarwal B (2018) Gender equality, food security and the sustainable development goals. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 34:26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.07.002

Aleksandrowicz L et al (2016) The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 11(11):e0165797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165797

Annan RA et al (2018) Public awareness and perception of Ghana's restrictive policy on fatty meat, as well as preference and consumption of meat products among Ghanaian adults living in the Kumasi Metropolis. BMC Nutrition 4(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795-018-0209-z

Barange B et al (2018) Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options, Rome

Beal T et al (2017) Global trends in dietary micronutrient supplies and estimated prevalence of inadequate intakes. PLOS ONE 12(4):e0175554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175554

Beal T, Neufeld LM, Morris SS (2019) Uncertainties in the GBD 2017 estimates on diet and health. Lancet 394(10211):1801–1802. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32502-4

Bernstein AM et al (2010) Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Circulation 122(9):876–883. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.915165

Bouvard V et al (2015) Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol 16(16):1599–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1

Burkholder JA et al (2007) Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environ Health Perspect 115(2):308–312. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8839

Chan DSM et al (2011) Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies. PLOS ONE 6(6):e20456. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0020456

Clark MA et al (2020) Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science 370(6517):705–708. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7357

Davis KF et al (2015) Historical trade-offs of livestock's environmental impacts. Environ Res Lett 10(12):125013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125013

De Sy V et al (2015) Land use patterns and related carbon losses following deforestation in South America. Environ Res Lett 10(12):124004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124004

de Vries M, de Boer IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 128(1–3):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.LIVSCI.2009.11.007

Delgado CL (2003) Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food revolution. J Nutr 133:3965–3971. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.11.3907S.

Delgado CL et al (1999) The coming livestock revolution, Commission on Sustainable Development, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-008-9165-7

Dinerstein E et al (2017) An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67(6):534–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014

Eaton JC et al. (2019) Effectiveness of provision of animal-source foods for supporting optimal growth and development in children 6 to 59 months of age. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012818.PUB2/MEDIA/CDSR/CD012818/IMAGE_N/NCD012818-CMP-003-02.PNG

FAO (2006) Livestock report, Rome

FAO (2009) The state of food and agriculture: livestock in balance, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Rome 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(75)92740-3

FAO (2019) FAOSTAT. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TM. Accessed 2 July 2021
FAO and UNEP (2020) The state of the World's forests 2020: forests, biodiversity and people, Rome

FAOSTAT (2018) FAOSTAT food balance sheets. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS. Accessed 16 June 2021

Fiorella KJ et al (2019) A review of transactional sex for natural resources: under-researched, overstated, or unique to fishing economies? Glob Public Health 14(12):1803-1814. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2019.1625941

Frehner A et al (2021) How food choices link sociodemographic and lifestyle factors with sustainability impacts. J Clean Prod 300:126896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126896

Galloway JN et al (2007) International pork chop trade in meat: the tip of the Ambio 36(8): 622-629. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[622:ITIMTT]2.0.CO;2

Garnett T et al (2015) Policies and actions to shift eating patterns: what works? FCRN/Chatham House, p 85

Gilbert M et al (2015) Income disparities and the global distribution of intensively farmed chicken and pigs. PLoS One 10(7):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133381

Godde CM et al (2018) Grazing systems expansion and intensification: drivers, dynamics, and trade-offs. Glob Food Sec 16(November):93-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.11.003

Godfray HCJ et al (2018) Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 361(6399). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324

Golden CD, Koehn JZ, Shepon A, Passarelli S, Free CM, Viana DF et al (2021) Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature 598(7880):315-320

Gonzalez Fischer C, Garnett T (2016) Plates, pyramids, planet: developments in national healthy and sustainable dietary guidelines: a state of play assessment. FAO, Rome. Available at www.fao.org/. Accessed 3 Jan 2019

Griscom BW et al. (2017) Natural climate solutions. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Early edit, pp 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114

Hallström E, Carlsson-Kanyama A, Börjesson P (2015) Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. J Clean Prod 91:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008

Havlík P et al (2014) Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(10):3709-3714. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308044111

Headey D, Hirvonen K, Hoddinott J (2018) Animal sourced foods and child stunting. Am J Agric Econ 100(5):1302-1319. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay053

Herforth A et al (2019) A global review of food-based dietary guidelines. Adv Nutr 10(suppl_2): S224-S238. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmy130

Herrero M et al (2009) Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1(2):111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.003

Herrero M et al (2010) Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science 327(5967):822-825. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183725

Herrero M, Grace D et al (2013a) The roles of livestock in developing countries. In: Animal. Elsevier, pp 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112001954

Herrero M, Havlík P et al (2013b) Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(52):20888-20893. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308149110

Herrero M et al (2014) Exploring future changes in smallholder farming systems by linking socio-economic scenarios with regional and household models. Glob Environ Chang 24(1):165-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.008

Herrero M et al (2016) Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat Clim Chang 6(5):452-461. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925

Herrero M, Thornton PK et al (2017) Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: a transdisciplinary analysis. Lancet Planet Health 1(1):e33-e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30007-4
Hristov AN et al (2013) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production. A review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. In: Gerber PJ, Henderson B, Makkar HPS (eds) FAO animal production and health paper. Rome. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.009

Hu FB (2013) Resolved: There is sufficient scientific evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases. Obes Rev 14(8):606–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12040

IARC (2015) IARC monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat, The Lancet Oncology. Lancet Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1

Iqbal R et al (2021) Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr 114(3):1049–1058. https://doi.org/10.1093/AJCN/NQAA448

Johnston BC, Zeraatkar D, Han MA, Vernooij RWM, Valli C, el Dib R et al (2019) Unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption: dietary guideline recommendations from the nutritional recommendations (NUTRIECS) consortium. Ann Intern Med 171(10):756–764. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-1621/SUPPL_FILE/M19-1621_SUPPLEMENT.PDF

Leclère D et al. (2018) Towards pathways bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity trends within the 21st century [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.22022/ESM/04-2018.15241

Lennox GD et al (2018) Second rate or a second chance? Assessing biomass and biodiversity recovery in regenerating Amazonian forests. Glob Chang Biol 24(12):5680–5694. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14443

Marlatt KL et al (2016) Breakfast and fast food consumption are associated with selected biomarkers in adolescents. Prev Med Rep 3:49–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.11.014

Mason-D'Croz D et al (2020) Modelling the global economic consequences of a major African swine fever outbreak in China. Nature Food 1(4):221–228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0057-2

Mbow C et al (2019) Food Security. In: IPCC special report on climate change and land. IPCC, pp 1–200

McDermott JJ et al (2010) Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livest Sci 130(1-3):95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.014

Miller LC et al (2020) Diet quality over time is associated with better development in rural Nepali children. Matern Child Nutr 16(3):e12964. https://doi.org/10.1111/MCN.12964

Mozaffarian D (2016) Dietary and policy priorities for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity. Circulation 133(2):187–225. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018585

Murphy SP, Allen LH (2003) Nutritional importance of animal source foods. J Nutr 133(11): 3932S–3935S. https://doi.org/10.1093/JN/133.11.3932S

Neumann C, Harris DM, Rogers LM (2002) Contribution of animal source foods in improving diet quality and function in children in the developing world. Nutr Res 22(1–2):193–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5317(01)00374-8

Newbold T et al (2016) Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353(6296):291–288. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2201

Olff H, Ritchie ME (1998) Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. Trends Ecol Evol 13(7):261–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01364-0

Pan A et al (2011) Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 94(4):1088–1096. https://doi.org/10.3945/AJCN.111.018978

Pimpin L et al (2019) Effects of animal protein supplementation of mothers, preterm infants, and term infants on growth outcomes in childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Clin Nutr 110(2):410–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/AJCN/NQY348

Poux X, Aubert P (2018) An agroecological Europe in 2050: multifunctional agriculture for healthy eating findings from the ten years for agroecology (TYFA) modelling exercise, Paris
Qian F et al (2020) Red and processed meats and health risks: how strong is the evidence? Diabetes Care 43(2):265-271. https://doi.org/10.2337/DCI19-0063

Ravuvu A et al (2018) Protocol to monitor trade agreement food-related aspects: the Fiji case study. Health Promot Int 33(5):887-900. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax020

Robinson TP et al (2011) Global livestock production systems, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

Roe S et al (2019) Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5°C world. Nat Clim Chang 9(11):817-828. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0591-9

Saget C, Vogt-Schilb A, Luu T (2020) Jobs in a net-zero emissions future in Latin America and the Caribbean, Washington, DC/Geneva

Schwingshackl L, Hoffmann G et al (2017a) Food groups and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur J Epidemiol 32(5):363-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10654-017-0246-Y/TABLES/1

Schwingshackl L, Schwedhelm C et al (2017b) Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Am J Clin Nutr 105(6):1462-1473. https://doi.org/10.3945/AJCN.117.153148

Searchinger TD et al (2015) High carbon and biodiversity costs from converting Africa's wet savannas to cropland. Nat Clim Chang 5:481-486. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2584

Semba RD et al (2016) Child stunting is associated with low circulating essential amino acids. EBioMedicine 6:246-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EBIOM.2016.02.030

Shapiro MJ et al (2019) A systematic review investigating the relation between animal-source food consumption and stunting in children aged 6-60 months in low and middle-income countries. Adv Nutr 10(5):827-847. https://doi.org/10.1093/ADVANCES/NMZ018

Smith P et al (2007) Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1-4):6-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.06.006

Smith P et al. (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use. In (ed) Intergovernmental panel on climate change working group, Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change, p 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2011.03.002

Soedamah-Muthu SS et al (2011) Milk and dairy consumption and incidence of cardiovascular diseases and all-cause mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Am J Clin Nutr 93(1):158-171. https://doi.org/10.3945/AJCN.2010.29866

Springmann M et al (2016) Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(15):4146-4151. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113

Springmann M et al (2018) Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562(7728):519-525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0

Stehfest E et al (2009) Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim Chang 95(1-2):83-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6

Thornton PK (2010) Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. In: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Royal Society, pp 2853-2867. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0134

Thow AM et al (2017) Food supply, nutrition and trade policy: reversal of an import ban on Turkey tails. Bull World Health Organ 95(10):723-725. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.192468

Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515(7528):518-522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959

Tubiello FN et al (2021) Carbon emissions and removals from forests: new estimates, 1990-2020. Earth System Science Data 13(4):1681-1691. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1681-2021

USDA and USHHS (2020) Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025, 9th edn. Washington, DC. Available at https://www.DietaryGuidelines.gov. Accessed 24 Mar 2022

van Zanten HHE et al (2018) Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Glob Chang Biol 24(9):4185-4194. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14321
Waithaka MM et al (2006) Bio-economic evaluation of farmers' perceptions of viable farms in western Kenya. Agric Syst 90(1-3):243-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.12.007

Walker P et al (2005) Public health implications of meat production and consumption. Public Health Nutr 8(4):348-356. https://doi.org/10.1079/phn2005727

Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S et al (2019a) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393:447-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen SJ et al (2019b) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 367(1866):3-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

Wing S, Wolf S (2000) Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents. Environ Health Perspect 108(3):233-238. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.00108233

World Bank (2016) List of economies

Young V, Pellett P (1994) Plant protein in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 59:1203S-1212S

Zaharia S et al (2021) Sustained intake of animal-sourced foods is associated with less stunting in young children. Nat Food 2(4):246-254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00259-z

Zheng Y et al (2019) Association of changes in red meat consumption with total and cause specific mortality among US women and men: two prospective cohort studies. BMJ, p 365. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.L2110

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>
# The Vital Roles of Blue Foods in the Global Food System

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Jim Leape, Fiorenza Micheli, Michelle Tigchelaar, Edward H. Allison, Xavier Basurto, Abigail Bennett, Simon R. Bush, Ling Cao, Beatrice Crona, Fabrice DeClerck, Jessica Fanzo, Stefan Gelcich, Jessica A. Gephart, Christopher D. Golden, Christina C. Hicks, Avinash Kishore, J. Zachary Koehn, David C. Little, Rosamond L. Naylor, Elizabeth R. Selig, Rebecca E. Short, U. Rashid Sumaila, Shakuntala H. Thilsted, Max Troell, and Colette C. C. Wabnitz

## 1 Introduction

Debates and decisions about food systems generally focus on agriculture and livestock. Blue foods – fish, invertebrates, algae and aquatic plants captured or cultured in freshwater and marine ecosystems – are perennially neglected (Bennett et al. 2021). Yet, blue foods play a central role in food and nutrition security for billions of people and may be ever more important as the world seeks to create just

J. Leape (✉) · M. Tigchelaar · J. Z. Koehn · E. R. Selig
Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
e-mail: jleape@stanford.edu

F. Micheli
Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

E. H. Allison · S. H. Thilsted
WorldFish, CGIAR, Penang, Malaysia

X. Basurto
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

A. Bennett
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

S. R. Bush
Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands

L. Cao
School of Oceanography, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

B. Crona · R. E. Short · M. Troell
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm, Sweden

F. DeClerck
EAT Forum and One CGIAR, Oslo, Norway
food systems that support the health of people and the planet (HLPE 2014; Bennett et al. 2018; FAO 2020a; Hicks et al. n.d.; Golden et al. 2021). It is thus paramount that governments bring blue food systems into their food-related decision-making.

Last year, the UN Committee of World Food Security High Level Panel of Experts called for a transformation of the food system, moving “from a singular focus on increasing the global food supply through specialized production and export to making fundamental changes that diversify food systems, empower vulnerable and marginalized groups, and promote sustainability across all aspects of food supply chains, from production to consumption” (HLPE 2020). Properly understood and managed, many blue foods are profoundly suited to that shift.

The blue food portfolio is highly diverse. There are more than 3000 species of marine and freshwater animals and plants used for food (Golden et al. 2021; Thilsted et al. 2016). Blue food systems are supported by a wide range of ecosystems, cultures and production practices – from large-scale trawlers on the high-seas to small-scale fishponds integrated within agricultural systems – supporting access to

J. Fanzo
Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

S. Gelcich
Instituto Milenio en Socio-ecología Costera & Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

J. A. Gephart
Department of Environmental Science, American University, Washington, DC, USA

C. D. Golden
Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

C. C. Hicks
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

A. Kishore
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA

D. C. Little
Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland

R. L. Naylor
Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

U. R. Sumaila
Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Endowment Lands, Canada

School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Endowment Lands, Canada

C. C. C. Wabnitz
Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Endowment Lands, Canada
nutritious food for communities through global and local markets alike. This diversity supports resilience that can help local food systems withstand shocks like COVID-19 and climate extremes (Troell et al. 2014; Béné 2020; Love et al. 2021) and offers many possibilities for governments and communities seeking to build food systems that are healthy, sustainable, and just.

Blue foods can be a cornerstone of good nutrition and health. Many of them are rich in bioavailable micronutrients that help prevent maternal and infant mortality, stunting, and cognitive deficits. And blue foods can be a healthier animal-source protein than terrestrial livestock: they are rich in healthy fats and can help reduce obesity and non-communicable diseases. In many parts of the world, blue foods are also more accessible and affordable than other animal-source foods (Ryckman et al. 2021a, b). Aquatic plants, including seaweeds, are a traditional presence in diets in the Asia-Pacific region and may offer a variety of possibilities for low-carbon, nutritious food. Coastal and riparian Indigenous Peoples, from the Arctic to the Amazon, have traditionally had among the highest per capita aquatic food consumption rates in the world (Bayley 1981; Cisneros-Montemayor et al. 2016).

Blue foods generally have smaller environmental footprints than many other animal-source foods (Gephart et al. 2021a). However, across a diverse sector, the details matter: greenhouse gas emissions and wildlife and biodiversity impacts can be quite high for some blue food systems, such as bottom trawling or aquaculture systems with low feed efficiencies, especially when they are poorly sited or poorly managed. But many fisheries and aquaculture systems offer footprints that are much smaller than that of beef, with the potential to be improved further (Gephart et al. 2021a). Unfed aquaculture (such as filter-feeding shellfish and seaweeds) also has the potential to improve the water quality of the environment it occupies (Naylor et al. 2021a).

Blue foods are important to livelihoods in many vulnerable communities. The FAO estimates that about 800 million people make their living in blue food systems (FAO 2012), mostly in small-scale fisheries and aquaculture. These systems produce a wide variety of blue foods, supporting healthy diets and resilience in the face of climate change and market fluctuations.

To capitalize on the potential of blue foods, decision-makers must address significant challenges. Wild capture fisheries, both marine and freshwater, need to be better managed (Hilborn et al. 2020; Melnychuk et al. 2021), as many fish stocks have become severely depleted and some technologies have high environmental footprints. Although aquaculture is becoming increasingly sustainable, the growing use of feed in some sectors is putting pressure on the environment through overfishing, deforestation for feed crops and intensification of agricultural production. Intensification of aquaculture can concentrate nutrient pollution and exacerbate risks associated with pathogens and high dependence on antibiotics (Naylor et al. 2021a; Henriksson et al. 2018).

Environmental stressors can also limit blue food production. Climate change will increasingly affect the health and productivity of fish stocks and aquatic ecosystems
(FAO 2018) with implications for food security, livelihoods and economies world-
wide, and especially in wild capture fisheries in Africa, East and South Asia, and
small island developing states (Tigchelaar et al. 2021; Golden et al. 2016). Other
kinds of pollution, from agricultural nutrient runoff to plastics, further threaten
productivity and the safety of foods harvested from polluted waters (Bank et al.
2020; Garrido Gamarro et al. 2020).

Like all food systems, blue food systems are beset by inequities. Wealth-
generating activities are often favored over those important to nutrition and health,
livelihoods and culture. The aquatic resource management systems, knowledge and
rights of Indigenous Peoples and traditional small-scale fisherfolk have often been
undermined or overlooked in fisheries, water management and ocean governance
(Ratner et al. 2014). Although blue food value chains employ roughly equal numbers
of men and women (FAO 2020a), their roles, influence over value chains, and
benefits can be highly unequal. Progress toward gender equality is critical for the
development of more equitable and efficient blue food systems (Hicks et al. n.d.;
Lawless et al. 2021).

Blue foods are globally the most traded food products – for developing countries, net revenues from trade of blue foods exceed those of all agricultural commodities combined (Gephart and Pace 2015; Sumaila et al. 2016; FAO 2020b). Global supply chains are complex and often opaque, however, making it difficult or impossible for buyers to ascertain environmental impacts and human rights abuses in production. In some places, the harvesting and trade of fish for high monetary-value global markets have undermined production that is important for local food security and livelihoods (Hicks et al. 2019).

There is every reason to expect that total demand for blue foods will grow substantially in the years ahead – as population and incomes increase, and as attention toward healthy and sustainable food expands (Naylor et al. 2021b) – with growth in supply primarily expected to come from aquaculture (Naylor et al. 2021a). If produced responsibly, blue foods have essential roles to play in ending malnutrition and in building healthy, nature-positive and resilient food systems, including for people living on lands that are marginal for agricultural production (particularly forests, wetlands and small islands), many of whom are Indigenous (Azam-Ali et al. 2021). Realizing that potential, however, will require that governments be thoughtful about how to develop those roles. Here, we focus on three central imperatives for policymakers:

I. Integrate blue foods into decision-making about food system policies, programs and budgets, so as to enable effective management of production, consumption and trade, as well as interconnections with terrestrial food production;

II. Understand, protect and develop their potential in ending malnutrition, fostering the production of accessible, affordable nutritious foods; and

III. Support the central role of small-scale actors, with governance and finance that are responsive to their diverse needs, circumstances and opportunities.
## The Bangladesh Story

The proliferation of diverse, freshwater aquaculture supply chains in Bangladesh in recent decades illustrates the potential for blue foods to meet domestic demand, improve food and nutrition security, and reduce rural poverty (Hernandez et al. 2018). This “hidden aquaculture revolution” has involved the participation of hundreds of thousands of small- to medium-scale actors along the supply chain, acting independently and in response to urbanization, growing incomes, and rising fish demand. Approximately 94% of the fish produced in freshwater aquaculture in Bangladesh is directed towards domestic markets and is not traded internationally. Although mostly small-scale, freshwater aquaculture systems have become increasingly intensive and commercial in their operations (Belton et al. 2018). Aquaculture growth and its contribution to food and nutrition security in Bangladesh have resulted from public investment in infrastructure, a positive business environment for small- and medium-size entrepreneurs, and ‘light touch’ government control over the types of systems and species produced (Hernandez et al. 2018).

# 2 Policy Recommendations

## 2.1 *Bring Blue Foods into the Heart of Food System*
*Decision-Making*

### 2.1.1 The Problem: Fisheries and Aquaculture Are Typically Ignored in the Management of Food Systems

Blue foods are deeply interconnected with the rest of the food system – in diets, in supply chains, and in the environment. Aquatic and terrestrial foods appear on the same plate and are often substitutes for each other in household food choices. Capture fisheries provide feed inputs for aquaculture and livestock; terrestrial crops provide feed inputs for aquaculture. Excess nutrients from agriculture and aquaculture can pollute rivers and cause coastal dead zones, undermining fisheries; cultivation of filter-feeding fish and seaweeds takes up nutrients and, if properly managed and scaled, can help protect ecosystem health. Genetic advances in crops and livestock have had positive spillover effects on aquaculture through selection and breeding and through improvements in nutritional performance and feed efficiency.

Yet, blue foods are generally ignored in food system discussions and decision-making (Bennett et al. 2021). Blue foods receive little attention in development assistance – the World Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other major development funders have largely neglected the roles of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants in human nutrition and health. Blue foods also tend to be left out of food system policymaking at the national level (Koehn et al. 2021). Ministries or
agencies dedicated to capture fisheries and aquaculture tend to manage them as a
natural resource, with a focus on economic interests – production and trade. In many
countries, the result is that both fisheries and aquaculture are managed with an
emphasis on high-monetary-value, export-oriented production. That orientation is
reinforced by the market and naturally favors investments in innovations and
enterprises that offer the highest financial return. Critical welfare functions are
often neglected; indeed, fishery agencies often lack the mandate to address the
potential contributions of blue foods to food security and public health, to liveli-
hoods and communities, and to cultural traditions and diets.

When fisheries and aquaculture are siloed and managed as a natural resource, policymakers miss vital opportunities for advancing their goals for nutrition, sustainability, resilience, and livelihoods, and they make unwitting trade-offs among those interests. Fisheries that have sustained communities for generations are depleted by distant water fleets or outcompeted in the market by large volumes of inexpensive farmed fish. The farming of species that could remedy pressing nutrient deficiencies remains undeveloped because management and investment are directed to high-revenue products. Small-scale producers who are central to local diets, livelihoods and community resilience lose out to large commercial concessions.

The African Great Lakes

The small pelagic fisheries of the African Great Lakes region illustrate the opportunities in bringing blue foods into food system policymaking. These fisheries produce huge volumes of affordable, micronutrient-rich food traded throughout the region, but they have been given low priority for investment and management because they are seen as having low economic value. Food system policymaking approaches could include investments to (a) reduce post-harvest loss, which can be substantial, and improve food quality and safety; (b) strengthen domestic and intra-regional trade institutions to enhance small-scale trader market access; (c) address the challenges, risks and opportunities of female fish traders, who comprise a substantial portion of the post-harvest sector; and (d) manage trade-offs between sale for animal feed industries and that for direct human consumption.

## 2.1.2 The Solution: Governments Should Fully Integrate Blue Foods into their Governance of Food Systems

The potential of blue foods will only be realized if they are brought into food system
decision-making. That requires integrated governance, systematic inclusion in pol-
icy, and a basic change in the way we think about fish. Specifically, governments
should:

(a) Create a governance structure that integrates green and blue

Governments should create a Ministry of Food or other structure that can govern the
entire food system, managing synergies and trade-offs in production, consumption
and trade. Ministries of agriculture and of fisheries typically focus on production – generally on increasing volume – and often are captured by entrenched interests. A Ministry of Food or similar entity could manage the disparate interests of producers, consumers, and other stakeholders for improved nutritional, environmental, economic, and social outcomes. It could, for example, manage production and consumption to create markets for more nutritious species (see Sect. 2.2). It could also expand the capabilities of small-scale producers, through investment and the allocation of resource rights to support livelihoods and community resilience (see Sect. 2.3). More broadly, it enables decision-makers to govern blue foods as a food system, and to ensure blue foods are fully included in all food system policies.

### (b) Govern blue foods as a food system

At the most basic level, integrating blue foods into food system decision-making also recognizes that fisheries and aquaculture should themselves be managed as food systems – they should be managed to deliver society's goals for nutrition, health and equity, as well as for economics and sustainability. Government policy and management should embrace all aspects of the blue food sector – including fisheries, aquaculture development, distribution, exports and imports, and consumption.

Promoting a systems approach means that governments can ensure that nutrient-rich aquatic foods are available and affordable to those for whom they are most important, both nutritionally and culturally. It can work across the value chain to identify and address the many threats to the supply of blue foods, from overfishing to pollution to waste and loss in harvesting, processing and distribution (see Sect. 2.2). It can build a system that is just, ensuring equitable participation in production, accessibility for consumption, and broad representation in decision-making. By managing blue foods as a system, governments can also create policies and incentives across the value chain to shift both production and consumption to species and technologies that have lighter footprints and to foster diversity in production systems.

Looking at the whole system also enables the government to make public investments where markets fail. Private investment goes to blue food systems and enterprises that offer high financial returns. Governments can allocate public funds to develop innovations in fisheries and aquaculture that offer lower returns but are important for nutrition, livelihoods, and sustainability, and it can provide capital for small- and medium-sized enterprises to take those innovations to scale.

To realize this vision, governments will need to collect data that enable good decisions – including data that enable the monitoring of fisheries and supply chains, that capture the vital diversity of species that are produced and consumed, that survey the demographic diversity of participants in the sector, and that reflect the frequently profound heterogeneity in consumption across different regions of the country and between different ethnic and religious groups. They will also need to redesign policies to enable and incentivize the capabilities of key actors – from producers to consumers – to adopt transformative practices in the food system as a whole, in value chains, and in the places where they live (see Sect. 2.3).
(c) Include blue foods in all food system policies

Structural reform must be followed by policy inclusion – governments should integrate blue foods into the policies that regulate, guide and support the food sector. Government strategies to meet the Human Right to Food, for example (see Sect. 2.2), should embrace the potential of blue foods to offer accessible, affordable sources of key nutrients. Dietary guidelines should include the nutritional contributions of different blue foods, so as to help consumers understand their value for addressing nutrient deficiencies and obesity, diabetes and coronary disease. Safety net programs for children and pregnant and lactating women should also include blue foods, as fish can be a rich source of essential micronutrients for those most vulnerable populations, helping to prevent stunting and cognitive deficits. The food systems and food sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples must be supported.

Including blue foods in policymaking for the food system allows governments to better manage the interconnections between terrestrial and aquatic food systems. That includes the regulation of agricultural and inland aquaculture runoff and other land-based pollution that can undermine coastal fisheries and marine aquaculture, such as nutrients that cause coastal dead zones and toxins that can compromise food safety. Governments can also better manage the allocation of crops and fish to competing uses – for food or feed – and support the development of a circular economy in which wastes or by-products from one part of the food system are used as feed inputs for another.

## 2.2 Protect and Develop the Potential of Blue Foods to Help End Malnutrition

### 2.2.1 The Problem: Blue Food Systems Are Not Managed for Nutrition

Many blue foods contain high concentrations of bioavailable minerals and vitamins, essential fatty acids (in particular, EPA and DHA), and animal protein (Thilsted et al. 2016) – globally, roughly 8% of zinc and iron, 13% of protein, and 27% of vitamin B12 are derived from aquatic foods (Golden et al. 2021). Blue foods can therefore make key contributions to diet-related health challenges. They can reduce micronutrient deficiencies that lead to disease; improve heart, brain and eye health by uniquely providing omega-3 fatty acids; and replace the consumption of less healthy red and processed meats (Golden et al. 2021). The micronutrient contributions of blue foods are especially important for childhood development, pregnant women and women of childbearing age (Kawarazuka and Béné 2011; Bogard et al. 2015; Starling et al. 2015), and can reduce nutritional inequities for girls and women (Golden et al. 2021).

Not all fish are equal. For example, a single serving of small indigenous species in Bangladesh, eaten whole, contributes more than five times as much vitamin B12 as a single serving of tilapia fillet (Thilsted et al. 2016). Which blue foods are on a plate,
and in what form, therefore matters as much as the amount of food (Golden et al. 2021; Hicks et al. 2019). Yet, blue food policy often considers blue foods only as a protein source, which neglects the nutrient diversity of fish (in terms of micronutrients and fatty acids) and excludes the contributions of aquatic plants altogether. In the Bangladesh case discussed above, for example, growth in (farmed) fish consumption has led to an increase in total protein consumption, but also a decrease in consumption of certain micronutrients, highlighting the challenge of balancing high nutrient content provided by small native fish with employment and revenue generation offered by tilapia and pangasius production (Bogard et al. 2017). Adopting a nutrition-sensitive approach to aquaculture and fisheries, rather than just a production focus, can address these issues (Bennett et al. 2021; Thilsted et al. 2016; Gephart et al. 2021b).

In many countries, ministries manage blue foods for their wealth-generating benefits, focusing policy on high economic value blue food production, often for export. Such a focus risks undermining the critical welfare functions of blue foods by neglecting the nutritional characteristics, livelihood contributions, accessibility, and cultural patterns of blue food consumption (Bennett et al. 2021; Hicks et al. n.d.; Thilsted et al. 2016; Hicks et al. 2019). Nutrient-dense blue foods are regularly exported from nutritionally vulnerable countries to serve either as a high-quality product for wealthy consumers or to be reduced to fishmeal to feed farmed fish for high-income countries (Isaacs 2016). Orientation towards export markets not only affects coastal and riparian populations, but also inland communities who have historically depended on richly nutritious dried or smoked fish transported from the coast (Gordon et al. 2013).

The quantity, quality and safety of blue food supply are threatened by food loss and waste (amounting to 35% of fish harvested globally (FAO 2020a)), management failures (including overfishing and Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated fishing), environmental degradation, and climate change (FAO 2018). It is estimated that declines in marine fish catch over the next three decades could subject an additional 845 million people (11% of the world's population) to vitamin A, zinc, or iron deficiencies (Golden et al. 2016). Though all of these pressures occur globally, their effects are highest and most strongly felt in tropical and low-income countries with high dependence on blue foods for nutrition and health, livelihoods and income (Tigchelaar et al. 2021; Golden et al. 2016).

Finally, blue food policy misses opportunities to support nutrition goals when it fails to address unequal distribution of the benefits from blue food systems or the concentration of power. Women, in particular, are underrepresented in policies and decision-making (Hicks et al. n.d.; Lawless et al. 2021; Udo and Okoko 2014). Where gender equality is lacking, blue foods are less affordable (Hicks et al. n.d.) and blue food waste and losses are greater (Kaminski et al. 2020).