options for keeping the food system within environmental ......peter scarborough, mike rayner, brent...

Options for keeping the food system withinenvironmental limits

Marco SpringmannOxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food

Nuffield Department of Population HealthUniversity of Oxford

Marco Springmann Food system within environmental limits

Acknowledgements

Reference:

Springmann et al, Nature 2018

Co-Authors:

Michael Clark, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, Keith Wiebe, BenjaminLeon Bodirsky, Luis Lassaletta, Wim de Vries, Sonja JVermeulen, Mario Herrero, Kimberly M Carlson, Malin Jonell,Max Troell, Fabrice DeClerck, Line J Gordon, Rami Zurayk,Peter Scarborough, Mike Rayner, Brent Loken, Jess Fanzo, HCharles J Godfray, David Tilman, Johan Rockstrom, WalterWillett

Funders:

EAT Foundation as part of the EAT-Lancet Commission onHealthy Diets for Sustainable Food Systems

Wellcome Trust ’Our Planet, Our Health’ partnership on”Livestock, Environment and People” (LEAP)


Background

The current food system is environmentally unsustainable:

major driver of climate change (25% of GHG emissions,Vermeulen et al, 2012);

major driver of land-use change and biodiversity loss (40% ofthe Earth’s surface, Ramankutty et al, 2008; Houghton et al,2012);

major user of freshwater resources (70% of global freshwaterwithdrawals (WWAP, 2012);

major polluter of terrestrial and aquatic systems throughfertilizer runoff (Vitousek et al, 1997) (→ dead zones incoastal oceans, Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008)

→ major driver of planetary impacts


Planetary boundaries

Steffan et al (2015), Campbell et al (2017)



Concept:

Define a safe operating space for humanity (Rockstrom et al,2009);

Transgressing put ecosystems at risk of being destabilised andlosing regulating functions on which populations depend

This study:

Analyse the option space for staying within planetaryboundaries;

Differentiate between different measures:

Reductions in food loss and wasteChanges in technology and managementDietary change



Caveats:

Planetary boundary framework useful for framing, in broadterms, the options space that preserves the sustainability ofkey ecosystems;

Some boundary values are subject to large uncertainty due todifficulty of defining global ecosystem thresholds for localenvironmental impacts;

⇒ Re-estimate uncertainty ranges;

⇒ Report environmental impacts in absolute terms to allowcomparisons to other measures of environmental sustainability.


Food systems model


Level of detail

Analysis based on future food projections for 159 regions and 62agricultural commodities from IFPRI-IMPACT model:


Add to that (1)

GHG emissions of livestock (Herrero et al 2013; FAOSTAT):


Add to that (2)

GHG emissions of crops (Carlson et al 2016):


Add to that (3)

Fertilizer application (Mueller et al, 2012):


Add to that (4)

Nitrogen balance model (Lassaletta et al, 2016):


Add to that (5)

Drivers of future food demand (population and income, SSPs):


Add to that (6)

Scenario assumptions:


Scenarios

Analysis of scenarios:

Reductions in food loss and waste

Changes in technology and management

Dietary changes

Two degrees of implementation:

medium ambition: in line with stated intention

high ambition: beyond expectations but considered attainablewith large-scale adoption of existing best practices

Baseline assumption:

Demand for environmental resources in absence oftechnological changes and dedicated mitigation meaures


Scenarios

Reductions in food loss and waste:

Waste:2: Food losses and waste reduced by half, in line withpledges made as part of the Sustainable Development Goals(Resolution, 2015);

Waste:4: Food losses and waste reduced by three quarters,likely close to the maximum value that can be theoreticalavoided (Parfitt et al., 2010).


Scenarios

Changes in technology and management:

Tech:

Closing of yield gaps between attained and attainable yields(Robinson et al., 2015);Rebalancing nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer applicationbetween over and under-applying regions (Mueller et al, 2012);Improving water management, including increasing basinefficiency, storage capacity, and better utilization of rainwater(Robinson et al., 2015);Implementation of agricultural mitigation options, includingchanges in irrigation, cropping and fertilization, as well aschanges in manure management, feed conversion and feedadditives (Beach et al., 2015).


Scenarios

Changes in technology and management:

Tech+:

Additional increases in agricultural yields (Mueller et al, 2012);30% increase in nitrogen use efficiency in line with suggestedtargets (Sutton et al., 2013), and 50% recycling rates ofphosphorus (Cordell and White, 2014);implementation of all available bottom-up mitigation options.


Scenarios

Dietary changes:

HGD: Diets in line with global dietary guidelines andrecommendations on healthy body weight and physicalactivity;

FLX: Flexitarian dietary patterns based on recent evidence onhealthy eating, including more stringent limits for red meat(one serving a week), limits for white meat (half a portion aday) and dairy (one portion a day), and greater minimumamounts of legumes, nuts, and vegetables.

Complementary analysis:

Nutritional and health implications of dietary changes towardsmore plant-based diets (Springmann et al, 2018, LancetPlanetary Health)


Results

Increase in resource demand by 2050: 50-90%


Results

Domains: livestock-dominated or staple-crop-dominated


Results

All planetary boundaries could be exceeded by 2050:


Results

Scenario analysis:


Results

Reduction in food loss and waste: ↓ 6-16% (medium), ↓ 9-24%(high)


Results

Improvements in technology and management: ↓ 3-30%(medium), ↓ 11-54% (high)


Results

Healthier diets: ↓ 5-29% (medium), ↓ 6-56% (high)


Results

Combining all measures: ↓ 25-45% (medium), ↓ 20-55% (high)


Results

Comparison to planetary boundaries:


Results

Planetary option space for different socio-economic pathways:


Results

Combination of measures to stay within environmental limits:


Discussion

Caveats:

No magic bullets, but scenarios of change considered realisticor being aspired to;

No soil carbon sequestration, N-fixing cereals, landless biomassproduction

We only included planetary boundaries for which food-relatedaspects could be separated;

No biodiversity estimates due to complex interactions withurbanization and quality of land use

Desirable future research angles:

Health co-benefitsBiodiversity impactsEconomic aspects of scenariosEquity aspects of food-system change


Healthy diets

Reductions in low nutrient intake due to dietary change:


Healthy diets

Reductions in premature mortality due to dietary change:


Policy implications

Improvements in technologies and management:

Investments in public infrastructure

Farm-level incentives/support to adopt best availabletechnologies

Better environmental regulation (eg water use and quality)

Reductions in food loss and waste:

Loss: investments in agricultural infrastructure, technologicalskills, storage, transport and distribution

Waste: Closed-loop supply chains, packaging, labelling andawareness campaigns


Policy implications

Improvements in socio-economic development:

Investments in education, especially for women

Improved access to general and reproductive health services

Improvements in diets:

Multicomponent approaches essential

Media and education campaigns; labelling and consumerinformation;

Fiscal measures, such as taxation, subsidies, and othereconomic incentives;

School and workplace approaches; local environmentalchanges;

Update national dietary guidelines

Make agricultural policies health-sensitive


Challenges from the consumption side

Consumption changes (%) to reach balanced flexitarian diets:


Challenges from the production side

Large-scale transition to more plant-based foods (in addition toimprovements in technology and management):


Conclusion

Summary:

Food-system demand for environmental resources couldincrease by 50-90% without targeted mitigation measures;

Key planetary boundaries could be exceeded by 2050, riskingdestabilization of ecosystem;

Synergistic combination of improvements in technologies andmanagement, reductions in food loss and waste, and dietarychanges towards healthier, more plant-based diets needed tostay within environmental limits;

Strong regulation and right incentives are required;

Combining measures with attention to local contextsimportant for defining region-specific sustainable-developmentpathways;

The country-specific data and suite of scenarios produced forthis study can be a starting point.


Literature

Country-level results available in:

Springmann et al, 2018, Options for keeping the food systemwithin environmental limits, Nature 562, 519-525.

Springmann et al, 2018, Health and nutritional aspects ofsustainable diet strategies and their association withenvironmental impacts: a global modelling analysis withcountry-level detail, Lancet Planetary Health 2, e451-e461.

Willett et al, 2019, Food in the Anthropocene: theEAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainablefood systems, The Lancet 392:10270, 447-492.


Thank you

Contact, comments and suggestions:

[email protected]


options for keeping the food system within environmental ......peter scarborough, mike rayner, brent...

Documents