ArticlePDF Available

Organic farming and deforestation

July 2016
Nature Plants 2(7):16098

DOI:10.1038/nplants.2016.98

Authors:

Catherine M. Tayleur (née Davey)

RSPB

Ben Phalan

Parque das Aves

Content uploaded by Ben Phalan

Content may be subject to copyright.

NATURE PLANTS | VOL 2 | JULY 2016 | www.nature.com/natureplants 1

correspondence

PUBLISHED: 1 JULY 2016 | ARTICLE NUMBER: 16098 | DOI: 10.1038/NPLANTS.2016.98

To the Editor — We agree with Reganold

and Wachter1 that organic farming

oers lessons for improving agricultural

sustainability. However, current organic

certication systems do little to prevent

deforestation and other forms of habitat

conversion. For example, the USDA

organic standard, widely applied around

the world, failed to prevent deforestation

for organic sugar in Paraguay2. e

certication criteria recommended by

the International Federation of Organic

Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)

specify that organic farms should not

be established on “land that has been

obtained by clearing of High Conservation

Value Areas in the preceding 5years”3,

but fail to elaborate how these areas

should be identied, by whom, and how

compliance is audited. Rigorous assessment

of land-use change cannot be le to

individual, poorly resourced auditors4.

e organic movement must learn from

other sustainability standards, such as the

Roundtable on Responsible Soy and the

Rainforest Alliance, which provide more

rigorous protection for forests and other

habitats. is will become increasingly

pertinent as interest in nding ways

to end habitat loss intensies, and as

companies commit to deforestation-free

supply chains. ❐

Cath Tayleur1* and Ben Phalan2*

1Conservation Science Group, Department

of Zoology, University of Cambridge,

David Attenborough Building, Pembroke

Street, CB2 3QZ, UK. 2Department of Forest

Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State

University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA.

*e-mail: cmt43@cam.ac.uk;

benphalan@gmail.com

References

1. Reganold, J.P. & Wachter, J.M. Nature Plants

2, 15221 (2016).

2. Rogers, H. Mother Jones 35, 58–79 (2010).

3. e IFOAM Norms for Organic Production and Processing

(IFOAM, 2014); http://bit.ly/21m1F0F

4. Jurjonas, M., Crossman, K., Solomon, J. & Baez, W.L. Worl d De v.

78, 13–21 (2016).

Organic farming and deforestation

2016

Macmillan

Publishers

Limited.

All

rights

reserved.

Global option space for organic agriculture is delimited by nitrogen availability

Article

Full-text available

May 2021

Organic agriculture is widely accepted as a strategy to reduce the environmental impacts of food production and help achieve global climate and biodiversity targets. However, studies concluding that organic farming could satisfy global food demand have overlooked the key role that nitrogen plays in sustaining crop yields. Using a spatially explicit biophysical optimization model that accounts for crop growth nitrogen requirements, we show that, in the absence of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, the production gap between organic and conventional agriculture increases as organic agriculture expands globally (with organic producing 36% less food for human consumption than conventional in a fully organic world). Yet, by targeting both food supply (via a redesign of the livestock sector) and demand (by reducing average per capita caloric intake), public policies could support a transition towards organic agriculture in 40–60% of the global agricultural area even under current nitrogen limitations thus helping to achieve important environmental and health benefits.

Changes in crop rotations would impact food production in an organically farmed world

Article

Full-text available

May 2019

The debate about organic farming productivity has often focused on its relative crop yields compared with conventional farming. However, conversion to organic farming not only results in changes in crop yields, but also in changes in the types of crops grown. To date, the effects of such changes on global crop production have never been systematically investigated. Here, we provide a novel, spatially explicit estimation of the distribution of crop types grown, as well as crop production, under a scenario of 100% conversion of current cropland to organic farming. Our analysis shows a decrease of −31% harvested area, with primary cereals (wheat, rice and maize) compensated by an increase in the harvested areas with temporary fodders (+63%), secondary cereals (+27%) and pulses (+26%) compared with the conventional situation. These changes, paired with organic-to-conventional yield gaps, lead to a −27% gap in energy production from croplands compared with current production. We found that ~1/3 of this gap is explained by changes in the types of crops grown (a contribution rising to 50% when focusing on food crops only), and that such changes strongly affect the repartition of total production among different crop types. Feeding the world organically would thus require profound adaptations of human diets and animal husbandry. © 2019, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.

Spatial Data Are Key to Sustainability Standards Increasing and Demonstrating Their Impact

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2018

Spatial data are increasingly ubiquitous and accessible. Understanding precisely where certified farms are located in relation to other variables can help uncover their potential to influence biodiversity, forest cover, and local livelihoods. Spatial mapping opens up many opportunities for sustainability standards organizations to test, understand, and demonstrate their impact. However, the potential of spatial data remains largely unrecognized and underdeveloped. For our recent analysis, we mapped certified farms for tropical commodity crops in unprecedented detail. We review ways in which spatial data are being used to enhance the positive impacts of certification on rural development and biodiversity conservation and suggest four steps by which standards organizations could build on this work to make the most of spatial data.

Water–food–energy–climate nexus and technology productivity: a Nigerian case study of organic leafy vegetable production

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2021
Environ Dev Sustain

Low agricultural productivity is a major challenge constraining food production in developing countries. Attempts at addressing the problem have resulted in the development and deployment of agricultural technologies, such as organic farming, to help boost productivity, enhance farmers’ income, and their overall livelihood conditions. The deployment of such productivity-enhancing technologies has mostly overlooked their inexplicable interconnectedness and interdependencies with nexus factors such as climate, water, and energy within the embeddings of a food production system. Through a Nigerian case study approach, this study attempts to bridge this gap by qualitatively investigating how organic leafy vegetable production (OLVP) and its anticipated outcomes can be affected by the interface of water, energy, and climate with food production. This was intended to generate exploratory insights that will help underscore why cross-sectoral linkages should be accounted for when deploying agricultural technology interventions. To achieve this objective, we conducted in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, and field visits to the farms of organic farmers in Ajibode, Ibadan, Nigeria. Results indicate that the productivity of OLVP was severely constrained by highly contextual nexus factors such as energy deficit, the water source for irrigation, changes in rainfall patterns, and temperature effect of harmattan. We concluded that location-specific nexus elements that intersect with food production should be accounted for when introducing productivity-enhancing technologies. Otherwise, the opportunity for improved agricultural productivity may remain elusive. Finally, our study shows that the nexus approach can help reveal intricately linked cross-sectoral factors that can constrain the performance of agricultural technologies.

Where are commodity crops certified, and what does it mean for conservation and poverty alleviation?

Article

Jan 2018

Voluntary sustainability standards have expanded dramatically over the last decade. In the agricultural sector, such standards aim to ensure environmentally and socially sustainable production of a variety of commodity crops. However, little is known about where agricultural certification operates and whether certified lands are best located for conserving the world’s most important biodiversity and benefiting the most vulnerable producers. To examine these questions we developed the first global map of commodity crop certification, synthesizing data from over one million farms to reveal the distribution of certification in unprecedented detail. It highlights both geographical clusters of certification as well as spatial bias in the location of certification with respect to environmental, livelihood and physical variables. Excluding organic certification, for which spatial data were not available, most certification of commodity crops is in tropical regions. Certification appears to be concentrated in areas important for biodiversity conservation, but not in those areas most in need of poverty alleviation, although there were exceptions to each of these patterns. We argue that the impact of sustainability standards could be increased by identifying places where it would be most beneficial to strengthen, consolidate, and expand certification. To achieve this, standards organizations will need to undertake more rigorous collection of spatial data, and more detailed analysis of their existing reach and impacts, with attention to potential trade-offs between different objectives. Efforts to promote spatial prioritization will require new partnerships to align specific conservation aims with the interests and capabilities of farmers.

Where are commodity crops certified, and what does it mean for conservation and poverty alleviation?

Article

Jan 2018
BIOL CONSERV

Voluntary sustainability standards have expanded dramatically over the last decade. In the agricultural sector, such standards aim to ensure environmentally and socially sustainable production of a variety of commodity crops. However, little is known about where agricultural certification operates and whether certified lands are best located for conserving the world's most important biodiversity and benefiting the most vulnerable producers. To examine these questions we developed the first global map of commodity crop certification, synthesizing data from over one million farms to reveal the distribution of certification in unprecedented detail. It highlights both geographical clusters of certification as well as spatial bias in the location of certification with respect to environmental, livelihood and physical variables. Excluding organic certification, for which spatial data were not available, most certification of commodity crops is in tropical regions. Certification appears to be concentrated in areas important for biodiversity conservation, but not in those areas most in need of poverty alleviation, although there were exceptions to each of these patterns. We argue that the impact of sustainability standards could be increased by identifying places where it would be most beneficial to strengthen, consolidate, and expand certification. To achieve this, standards organizations will need to undertake more rigorous collection of spatial data, and more detailed analysis of their existing reach and impacts, with attention to potential trade-offs between different objectives. Efforts to promote spatial prioritization will require new partnerships to align specific conservation aims with the interests and capabilities of farmers.

Reply to ‘Organic farming and deforestation’

Article

Jul 2016

Reganold and Wachter reply — We appreciate Tayleur and Phalan 1 elaborating on the important challenge of habitat conversion facing agriculture. Indeed the relationship between agricultural expansion and habitat loss is complex 2 , and we did not have space to delve into this complexity in our paper 3 .

Reply to ‘Are the claimed benefits of organic agriculture justified?’

Article

Jul 2016

Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2016

Organic agriculture has a history of being contentious and is considered by some as an inefficient approach to food production. Yet organic foods and beverages are a rapidly growing market segment in the global food industry. Here, we examine the performance of organic farming in light of four key sustainability metrics: productivity, environmental impact, economic viability and social wellbeing. Organic farming systems produce lower yields compared with conventional agriculture. However, they are more profitable and environmentally friendly, and deliver equally or more nutritious foods that contain less (or no) pesticide residues, compared with conventional farming. Moreover, initial evidence indicates that organic agricultural systems deliver greater ecosystem services and social benefits. Although organic agriculture has an untapped role to play when it comes to the establishment of sustainable farming systems, no single approach will safely feed the planet. Rather, a blend of organic and other innovative farming systems is needed. Significant barriers exist to adopting these systems, however, and a diversity of policy instruments will be required to facilitate their development and implementation.

Potential Links Between Certified Organic Coffee and Deforestation in a Protected Area in Chiapas, Mexico

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2016
WORLD DEV

This study considers organic coffee certification and deforestation in the El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve of Chiapas, Mexico. Land reform, dating back to the revolution, has created a complex context for measuring land use change. The locally improved price of organic production, maintained yield, and plantation growth rate-twice that of conventional producers-raise questions about potential deforestation. While consumers believe organic does not deforest, no measurements are taken during inspection. As communal land privatizes without an established baseline for land use change, improved organic certification inspections are needed to verify good practices and advance forest conservation in the coffee sector.

Jan 2016
WORLD DEV
13-21

M Jurjonas
K Crossman
J Solomon
W L Baez

Jurjonas, M., Crossman, K., Solomon, J. & Baez, W. L. World Dev. 78, 13-21 (2016).

Jan 2010
58-79

H Rogers

Rogers, H. Mother Jones 35, 58-79 (2010).

Organic farming and deforestation

Recommended publications

Reply to ‘Organic farming and deforestation’

An Importance of Sustainable Improvement on Organic Forming in India

Conservation in Oil-Palm Landscapes

Organic farming and organic food as an opportunity for sustainable development of rural areas