Croplands have replaced natural habitats that contained a lot of biodiversity and crops don’t even grow well there.
Agriculture is responsible for huge carbon emissions and biodiversity losses, but it doesn’t have to be that way. We can maximize yields while minimizing environmental impact by moving production from certain areas to other areas. This would result in lower carbon emissions, greater biodiversity, and less freshwater consumption.
Scientists at the University of Cambridge have created a mathematical model that will help determine where agricultural lands should be placed to grow 25 major crops around the world. This will ensure the least environmental impact.
Based on Their findingsThey have created a new global map for intensive agriculture. In it, they propose new areas for major crops in the midwest US and below the Sahara desert. At the same time, they recommend restoring large areas of farmland in Europe or India to their natural habitats.
This shift could reduce the global carbon emissions from crop production by 71%. It would allow land that is currently being used to revert back to natural forested status. “This is the equivalent of capturing twenty years’ worth of our current net CO2 emissions. Trees capture carbon as they grow, and also enable more carbon to be captured by the soil than when crops are grown in it,” the scientists explain.
Importantly, crop production would have a smaller impact on biodiversity around the world by 87%, giving many endangered species more space.
The current 70% dependence of agricultural production on freshwater would shrink dramatically because crops could be grown in places where rain already provides all the water they need without the need to be irrigated.
Is it too good to be true? Scientists say it shouldn’t.
“In many places, cropland has replaced natural habitat that contained a lot of carbon and biodiversity and crops don’t even grow very well there. If we let these places regenerate, and moved production to better suited areas, we would see environmental benefits very quickly,” explains Robert Beyer, a former researcher at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Zoology who now works at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
Beyer acknowledges that it is impossible to relocate all croplands globally in more ideal locations. “It’s currently not realistic to implement this whole redesign,” he says. “But even if we only relocated a fraction of the world’s cropland, focusing on the places that are least efficient for growing crops, the environmental benefits would be tremendous.”
One reason the scientists’ models could and should inform policies is that they highlight agricultural areas that are highly unproductive but could be turned into hotspots for biodiversity and carbon storage. Even if some of the croplands were moved, this would still be true.
“Taking a pared-back approach and only redistributing croplands within national borders, rather than globally, would still result in significant benefits: global carbon impact would be reduced by 59% and biodiversity impact would be 77% lower than at present,” the experts stress.
“A third, even more realistic option of only relocating the worst-offending 25% of croplands nationally would result in half of the benefits of optimally moving all croplands,” they add.
Importantly, even with ongoing climate change, the optimal distribution for croplands will remain largely the same until the end. “Optimal cropping locations are no moving target. Areas where environmental footprints would be low, and crop yields high, for the current climate will largely remain optimal in the future,” notes Prof. Andrea Manica, a scientist at the University of Cambridge.
Scientists propose financial incentives for farmers to encourage them to plant crops in areas that are more suitable to their crops, so that they can reduce environmental impacts.
“The model has generated alternative global distribution maps depending on the way the land is farmed ranging from advanced, fully mechanised production with high-yielding crop varieties and optimum fertiliser and pesticide application, through to traditional subsistence-based organic farming. Even redistribution of less intensive farming practices to optimal locations would substantially reduce their carbon and biodiversity impacts,” the scientists explain.
Other scientists have proposed alternative scenarios with the goal of reducing the environmental impact of agriculture. Many of these scenarios are based on current western diets. The University of Cambridge study suggests that such initiatives are likely to fail.
“While other studies show that if we moved towards more plant-based diets we could significantly reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture,” they observe, “in reality diets aren’t changing quickly.”
This is why we should try to produce the exact same food that we eat, but in more optimal ways.