The Future of Foodfrom the Sea

BrenSchoolofEnvironmentalScience&Mgmt

Steve Gaines

GlobalDemandforAnimalProtein

4

Land Area

hectares per person

Rank Territory Value191 Nauru 0.154192 Barbados 0.143193 Bahrain 0.101194 Maldives 0.100195 Bangladesh 0.091196 Malta 0.080197 Holy See 0.044198 Singapore 0.016199 Hong Kong (China) 0.015200 Monaco 0.006

MOST AND LEAST LANDTechnical notes WORLD LAND DISTRIBUTION

© Copyright 2006 SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and Mark Newman (University of Michigan)

Rank Territory Value1 Greenland 8212 Western Sahara 973 Mongolia 604 Namibia 415 Australia 396 Suriname 397 Mauritania 378 Iceland 339 St Vincent & The Grenadines 3310 Botswana 31

Land Area

www.worldmapper.org

Produced by the SASI group (Sheffield) and Mark Newman (Michigan)

“Secure access to land remains essential for diverse land-based livelihoods and is a precondition for sustainableagriculture, economic growth and poverty reduction ”

The land area of each territory isshown here.

The total land area of these 200territories is 13056 million hectares.Divided up equally that would be 2.1hectares for each person. A hectareis 100 metres by 100 metres.

However, population is not evenlyspread: Australia’s land area is 21 timesbigger than Japan’s, but Japan’spopulation is more than six timesbigger than Australia’s.

• Principal data source: United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, 2005

• Land area excludes land covered by major rivers,lakes and the sea

• Population data used is from 2002.• See web site for further information

Each territory’s size on the map is drawn according toits land area.

Map 001

Central Africa3.7%

Southeastern Africa18.5%

Northern Africa10.7%

Southern Asia2.7%

Asia Pacific8.5%Middle East

18.0%

Eastern Asia7.4%

South America12.1%

Eastern Europe1.9%

North America13.8%

Western Europe2.4%

Japan0.2%

Oxfam, 2006

Population Size

Population 2050

Per Capita Income vs % Protein from Meat

Growth in Wealth

GlobalDemandforAnimalProtein

10

) Growth by 2050How will this growth be met?

Bad Options on LandBiodiversity, GHG, Nutrient loading challenges - Tilman et al. 2011

Aggregate measures of production can mask trends in individualcrops or crop groups (Supplementary Fig. 2a). For example, cereal cropsdecreased in harvested area by 3.6% between 1985 and 2005, yet theirtotal production increased by 29%, reflecting a 34% increase in yields perhectare. Oil crops, on the other hand, showed large increases in bothharvested area (43%) and yield (57%), resulting in a 125% increase intotal production18. While most crops increased production between1985 and 2005, fodder crops did not: on average, they saw an 18%production drop as a 26% loss in harvested area overrode an 11%increase in yields.

Using geospatial data15, we can examine how yield patterns havechanged for key commodities (for example, maize in SupplementaryFig. 2b). These geographic patterns show us where productivity gainshave been successful, where they have not, and where further oppor-tunities for improvement lie.

Crop use and allocationThe allocation of crops to nonfood uses, including animal feed, seed,bioenergy and other industrial products, affects the amount of foodavailable to the world. Globally, only 62% of crop production (on a massbasis) is allocated to human food, versus 35% to animal feed (whichproduces human food indirectly, and much less efficiently, as meat anddairy products) and 3% for bioenergy, seed and other industrial products.

A striking disparity exists between regions that primarily grow cropsfor direct human consumption and those that produce crops for otheruses (Fig. 1). North America and Europe devote only about 40% of theircroplands to direct food production, whereas Africa and Asia allocatetypically over 80% of their cropland to food crops. Extremes range fromthe Upper Midwestern USA (less than 25%) to South Asia (over 90%).

As we face the twin challenges of feeding a growing world whilecharting a more environmentally sustainable path, the amount of land(and other resources) devoted to animal-based agriculture merits criticalevaluation. For example, adding croplands devoted to animal feed(about 350 million hectares) to pasture and grazing lands (3.38 billionhectares), we find the land devoted to raising animals totals 3.73 billionhectares—an astonishing ,75% of the world’s agricultural land. Wefurther note that meat and dairy production can either add to or subtract

from the world’s food supply. Grazing systems, especially on pasturesunsuitable for other food production, and mixed crop–livestock systemscan add calories and protein to the world and improve economic con-ditions and food security in many regions. However, using highly pro-ductive croplands to produce animal feed, no matter how efficiently,represents a net drain on the world’s potential food supply.

Global environmental impacts of agricultureThe environmental impacts of agriculture include those caused byexpansion (when croplands and pastures extend into new areas, repla-cing natural ecosystems) and those caused by intensification (whenexisting lands are managed to be more productive, often through theuse of irrigation, fertilizers, biocides and mechanization). Below, we usenew data and models17,21,22 to examine both.

Agricultural expansion has had tremendous impacts on habitats, bio-diversity, carbon storage and soil conditions10,11,23,24. In fact, worldwideagriculture has already cleared or converted 70% of the grassland, 50% ofthe savanna, 45% of the temperate deciduous forest, and 27% of thetropical forest biome14,25.

Today, agriculture is mainly expanding in the tropics, where it isestimated that about 80% of new croplands are replacing forests26. Thisexpansion is worrisome, given that tropical forests are rich reservoirs ofbiodiversity and key ecosystem services27. Clearing tropical forests is alsoa major source of greenhouse gas emissions and is estimated to releasearound 1.1 3 1015 grams of carbon per year, or about 12% of total anthro-pogenic CO2 emissions28. Slowing or halting expansion of agriculture inthe tropics—which accounts for 98% of total CO2 emissions from landclearing29—will reduce carbon emissions as well as losses of biodiversityand ecosystem services27.

Agricultural intensification has dramatically increased in recent decades,outstripping rates of agricultural expansion, and has been responsible formost of the yield increases of the past few decades. In the past 50 years, theworld’s irrigated cropland area roughly doubled18,30,31, while global fertilizeruse increased by 500% (over 800% for nitrogen alone)18,32,33. Intensificationhas also caused water degradation, increased energy use, and widespreadpollution32,34,35.

Of particular concern is that some 70% of global freshwater with-drawals (80–90% of consumptive uses) are devoted to irrigation36,37.Furthermore, rain-fed agriculture is the world’s largest user of water13,38.In addition, fertilizer use, manure application, and leguminous crops(which fix nitrogen in the soil) have dramatically disrupted global nitro-gen and phosphorus cycles39–41, with associated impacts on water quality,aquatic ecosystems and marine fisheries35,42.

Both agricultural expansion and intensification are also major con-tributors to climate change. Agriculture is responsible for 30–35% ofglobal greenhouse gas emissions, largely from tropical deforestation,methane emissions from livestock and rice cultivation, and nitrousoxide emissions from fertilized soils29,43–46.

We can draw important conclusions from these trends. First, theexpansion of agriculture in the tropics is reducing biodiversity, increas-ing greenhouse gas emissions, and depleting critical ecosystem services.Yet this expansion has done relatively little to add to global food sup-plies; most production gains have been achieved through intensification.Second, the costs and benefits of agricultural intensification vary greatly,often depending on geographic conditions and agronomic practices.This suggests that some forms (and locations) of intensification arebetter than others at balancing food production and environmentalprotection11,47.

Enhancing food production and sustainabilityUntil recently, most agricultural paradigms have focused on improvingproduction, often to the detriment of the environment10,11,47. Likewise,many environmental conservation strategies have not sought toimprove food production. However, to achieve global food securityand environmental sustainability, agricultural systems must be trans-formed to address both challenges (Fig. 2).

Food production area as fraction of total cropland

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 1 | Allocation of cropland area to different uses in 2000. Here weshow the fraction of the world’s total cropland that is dedicated to growing foodcrops (crops that are directly consumed by people) versus all other crop uses,including animal feed, fibre, bioenergy crops and other products. Averagedacross the globe, 62% of total crop production (on a mass basis) is allocated tohuman food, 35% for animal feed (which produces human food indirectly, andless efficiently, as meat and dairy products) and 3% for bioenergy crops, seed,and other industrial products. There are striking disparities between regionsthat primarily grow crops for human consumption (such as Africa, South Asia,East Asia), and those that mainly produce crops for other uses (such as NorthAmerica, Europe, Australia). Food production and allocation data wereobtained from FAOSTAT18, and were then applied to the spatial cropland mapsof refs 14 and 15. All data are for a seven-year period centred on 2000.

RESEARCH ANALYSIS

3 3 8 | N A T U R E | V O L 4 7 8 | 2 0 O C T O B E R 2 0 1 1

Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved©2011

1 B hectaresCleared for Agriculture 3 G tons CO2/yr

Sources ofGreenhouse Gases

Energy ProductionLivestock

TransportationFossil Fuel Retrieval

AgricultureResidential

ManufacturingLand Use

Waste Disposal

Cost Depends onWhat is Consumed

0"

50"

100"

150"

200"

250"

300"

Fed"Finfish"(net"pen)"

Fed"Finfish"(pond)"

Fed"Finfish"(land)"

Fed"Invertebrates"

Unfed"

Pigmeat"

Poultry"

MuBon"&"Goat"

Beef"

"Trapping"

Nets"

Longlining"

Puse"Seining"

Trawling"

KG#of#C

O2#pe

r#KG#of#Protein#

Global#Warming#Poten6al#for#Meat#and#Seafood#

The Global Warming Pie Emissions from Everywhere

4 | Chatham House

Changing Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat ConsumptionThe Meat of the Problem

17 A study published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in October 2015 reported the consumption of red meat as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ and processed meat as ‘carcinogenic to humans’. The experts concluded the global impact of the consumption of processed meat to be of ‘public health importance’; see IARC (2015), p. 1. See also Bouvard et al. (2015); Aune et al. (2009). 18 Rouhani et al. (2014).19 Dobbs et al. (2014).20 IFPRI (2014). 21 In the US, antimicrobial resistance is associated with excess health costs of $20 billion a year. See CDC (2011); CDC (2015).

increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 per cent.17 It has also been identified as a contributor to obesity18 – now one of the three most costly social burdens created by humans.19 This consumption pattern is not shared equally: we live in an era of ‘complex, overlapping and connected malnutrition burdens’,20 where overconsumption of meat is elevating the incidence of NCDs for some, while insufficient access

to the nutrients they provide can be a contributing factor to pervasive malnutrition for others. The industrialization of animal production to meet growing demand has also seen the widespread use of antibiotics to prevent disease, contributing to increased antimicrobial resistance and rising costs of treatment.21

Box 3: Changing diets, changing minds

Efforts by state and non-state actors alike to push dietary change up the political agenda are likely to face resistance for a number of reasons, not least because a focus on reducing – rather than driving up – demand implies countering the trajectory of the protein transition and of consumption-led growth that some see as an indication of social and economic development. In addition, the received wisdom among governments is that supply-side change is both practically and politically easier to champion. The complexity of the issues at stake, coupled with the thin evidence base for designing effective policies to encourage reduced demand for meat, leaves considerable space for more conservative industry groups and governments to exploit uncertainty and defend the better-trodden path of supply-side mitigation.

National emissions accounting

Current frameworks within which GHG emissions are measured and monitored are production-based: governments are accountable for only those emissions that occur within national borders, i.e. those directly resulting from national livestock production. An alternative consumption-based approach would allocate GHG emissions resulting from the entire meat and dairy supply chain – including from land-use change for feed production and grazing, the production and use of fertilizers, and the transportation, processing and storage of feed and animal products (see Figure 2) – to the country in which the final products are consumed.

As a result of the production-based approach, major livestock-producing countries that rely heavily on imported fertilizers and feed, and major meat- and dairy-importing countries, are not being held to account for the carbon footprint of national consumption patterns. Consequently, there is little incentive for these governments to address the environmental impacts and emissions associated with unsustainable consumption or to incorporate demand-side mitigation measures into national climate strategies.

Complementary emissions inventory frameworks to ensure that consumption-based emissions are captured, and further independent research to measure consumption-based emissions at both national and global levels, would greatly strengthen the evidential basis and policy rationale for demand-side action to reduce the climate impact of the livestock sector.

Figure 2: Breakdown of livestock sector emissions by source

Source: Chatham House analysis based on FAO (2013).

Supply-side efficiency improvements

The livestock sector is highly heterogeneous: production systems vary from farm to farm and region to region and, as a result, the range in total direct and indirect emissions associated with a given meat or dairy product may be very wide indeed.

Significant scope therefore remains for improving the efficiency of production across much of the global livestock sector, and consequently policy attention around the means and potential of supply-side mitigation measures has far outweighed that around demand-side options.a Discussions with industry and government stakeholders in China, Brazil, the United Kingdom

39%

26%

21%

9% 5%

Enteric fermentation

Manure

Feed

Land-use change

Energy and post-farm

Burps

Feces

Feed

Oceans have LowerGHG Costs

0"

50"

100"

150"

200"

250"

300"

Fed"Finfish"(net"pen)"

Fed"Finfish"(pond)"

Fed"Finfish"(land)"

Fed"Invertebrates"

Unfed"

Pigmeat"

Poultry"

MuBon"&"Goat"

Beef"

"Trapping"

Nets"

Longlining"

Puse"Seining"

Trawling"

KG#of#C

O2#pe

r#KG#of#Protein#

Global#Warming#Poten6al#for#Meat#and#Seafood#

Fisheries

Option 1:

Fix Fisheries

Where We are Today

Costello et al. in review

% F

isher

ies w

ith G

ood

Harv

est

Alternative Futures

% F

isher

ies w

ith G

ood

Harv

est

8 MMT of Filets

300 MMT more Fish

$40 B more Profits

Projections for Every Fishing Country

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

●China

4.4

0.2

Cha

nge

Annu

al P

rofit

($ B

illion

)

Change in Biomass (MMT)

MSY (MMT, of conservation concern)

Change in Catch (MMT)0 1

A

0 10 20 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Indonesia

India

Japan

PhilippinesThailandMalaysia

Viet NamS. KoreaTaiwan

B

Cha

nge

in A

nnua

l Pro

fit ($

Billi

on)

GlobalDemandforAnimalProtein

20

) Growth by 2050

Fix Fisheries

Oceans have LowerGHG Costs

0"

50"

100"

150"

200"

250"

300"

Fed"Finfish"(net"pen)"

Fed"Finfish"(pond)"

Fed"Finfish"(land)"

Fed"Invertebrates"

Unfed"

Pigmeat"

Poultry"

MuBon"&"Goat"

Beef"

"Trapping"

Nets"

Longlining"

Puse"Seining"

Trawling"

KG#of#C

O2#pe

r#KG#of#Protein#

Global#Warming#Poten6al#for#Meat#and#Seafood#

Aquaculture

Option 2

AThoughtExperiment

22

) Growth by 2050What are the Environmental Costs?

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cost of Meeting 2050 Demand

BeefM

utton & GoatPoultryPigm

eat DairyFish AquacultureEggsRiceUnfed AquacultureW

heatBrown KelpSoybean

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Gig

aton

s CO

2 Ad

ded

Water Used Cost of Meeting 2050 Demand

Pigmeat

BeefM

utton & GoatW

heatRiceDairyPoultryEggsSoybeanFish AquacultureUnfed AquacultureBrown Kelp

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Km3

Wat

er

Area Used Cost of Meeting 2050 Demand

Mutton & Goat

BeefPigm

eat DairyPoultryFish AquacultureEggsRiceW

heatSoybeanUnfed Aquaculture

0

2.0x10+6

4.0x10+6

6.0x10+6

8.0x10+6

1.0x10+7

1.2x10+7

1.4x10+7

Km2

Adde

d

Thought Experiment Area needed by 2050

Thought Experiment

75%of

South America

Area needed by 2050

Thought Experiment

95%ofNZ

Area needed by 2050

75%of

South America

Thought Experiment #2 Greenhouse Warming Potential(Gigatons CO2 Equiv) by 2050

Thought Experiment #2 Greenhouse Warming Potential(Gigatons CO2 Equiv) by 2050

72% ofChina

132% of USA

Thought Experiment #2

95% of Australia

Greenhouse Warming Potential(Gigatons CO2 Equiv) by 2050

72% ofChina

132% of USA

Thought Experiment #3 Freshwater

Thought Experiment #3 Freshwater

LakeHuron

Thought Experiment #3 Freshwater

LakeHuron

Take Away• SURF >>> TURF

• Shifting Future Diets to More Seafood

• Behavior Change

• Remove Constraints

• New Policies

Area Used Cost of Meeting 2050 Demand

Mutton & Goat

BeefPigm

eat DairyPoultryFish AquacultureEggsRiceW

heatSoybeanUnfed Aquaculture

0

2.0x10+6

4.0x10+6

6.0x10+6

8.0x10+6

1.0x10+7

1.2x10+7

1.4x10+7

Km2

Adde

d Current Global Average Diet

Diet PreferencesAre Favorable

Constraints onFed Aquaculture Feed

Limits on Fishmeal Emerging Feeds

New Policies Regulatory reform, Carbon Tax