Declining biodiversity for food and agriculture needs urgent global action

Abstract

The continuing loss of ecosystems, species and intraspecific genetic diversity has profound implications for agriculture, food security and human wellbeing. An urgent response is needed, including at global level.

Full text

144
comment
Declining biodiversity for food and agriculture
needs urgent global action
The continuing loss of ecosystems, species and intraspecific genetic diversity has profound implications for
agriculture, food security and human wellbeing. An urgent response is needed, including at global level.
Dafydd Pilling, Julie Bélanger and Irene Homann
Conserving biodiversity while
meeting the needs of human
populations for food, fibre, fuel,
timber and other products from the
world’s croplands, grasslands, forests
and aquatic ecosystems is a major global
challenge. Land- and water-use change,
pollution, overharvesting and greenhouse
gas emissions associated with food and
agriculture are among the most serious
threats to biodiversity. At the same time,
food and agriculture depend on biodiversity
in a multitude of ways. This relates both
to species that are directly cultivated and
harvested, and to what can be referred to as
‘associated biodiversity’ — the species and
ecosystems that help to create and maintain
suitable conditions for production, for
example by pollinating crops, maintaining
soil fertility, controlling pests or providing
habitats for fish.
Global assessment
The Commission on Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) is the only intergovernmental
body specifically charged with addressing
policy matters related to the management of
all components of biodiversity of relevance
to food and agriculture. Over recent
decades, the Commission has overseen
the preparation of global assessments of
crop, livestock, forest and aquatic genetic
resources for food and agriculture1–6. In
the first three cases, the assessments led
to the adoption of internationally agreed
global plans of action for genetic resources
in the respective sector7–10. Discussion of a
potential policy response to the assessment
of aquatic genetic resources, published in
2019, is currently ongoing11.
In 2007, the Commission decided
that its future activities should include a
global assessment covering all biodiversity
within its mandate, to be published as
The State of the World’s Biodiversity for
Food and Agriculture (SoW–BFA)12. As the
species used directly in crop and livestock
production, forestry and aquaculture had
been (or were to be) covered in detail in
the aforementioned sectoral assessments,
the objective was that the SoW–BFA
should focus mainly on other categories
of biodiversity — particularly associated
biodiversity and wild foods — and
interactions between categories.
The SoW–BFA process involved inviting
countries to prepare reports on the state of
their biodiversity for food and agriculture
(BFA) based on a set of guidelines agreed by
the Commission. The exercise was intended
not only as a means of gathering data,
but also as a way for countries to identify
national priorities related to the management
of BFA. Country reporting began in 2013,
and 91 reports were submitted. The SoW–
BFA12, which was published in February
2019, also draws on the global scientific
literature, reports provided by
27 international organizations and a number
of specially commissioned thematic studies.
Key findings
For communication purposes, the analysis
presented in the SoW–BFA12 was condensed
into the following five key findings.
Biodiversity is essential to food and
agriculture. The diversity of biological
resources — both domesticated and
wild, and at genetic, species and ecosystem
levels — contributes to the productivity and
resilience of food and agricultural systems,
livelihoods and food security in many ways,
particularly in the context of climate change.
Major benefits include the following:
• e availability of a diverse range of dif-
ferently adapted species and populations
Box 1 | Biodiversity for the productivity and resilience of food and agricultural systems
and livelihoods — examples reported by countries12
Kiribati. Integrated farming of milksh,
sandsh sea cucumber and seaweed
has proved to be an eective means of
securing production and income in
uctuating weather conditions, as one of
the components of the system is always
producing food.
Zambia. Non-wood forest products, such
as caterpillars and wild fruits, have become
important commodities in the major towns
and cities and serve as an alternative source
of household income in periods of drought
when farmed crops fail.
India. e country has a rich diversity
of native cattle, bualo, goat, sheep, pig,
equine, camel, yak, mithun and poultry
breeds. Being adapted to a variety of
extreme climatic conditions, as well as
to limited resource availability, these
breeds greatly contribute to the resilience
of livestock production systems. e
diversity of livestock and livestock
systems also contributes to poverty
reduction and food and nutrition security
through the supply of nutrient-rich food
products and the generation of income
and employment.
Ecuador. Traditional local strategies based
on biodiversity management are used to
reduce the impact of natural or human-
made disasters. For example, farmers
maintain intraspecic and interspecic
crop diversity in plots of land; family
and community seed banks assist with
the restoration of diversity aer crop
failures; and crop sowing dates and spatial
arrangements are managed to minimize
risks.
Sudan. Home gardens are important for
food security, nutrition and household
income during periods between the
harvesting seasons of staple crops. To
increase the harvesting period of home
gardens, farmers plant a variety of tree and
herbaceous species that provide products
at dierent times of the year.
NATURE FOOD | VOL 1 | MARCH 2020 | 144–147 | www.nature.com/natfood

145
comment
allows production, and the various
ecological processes that support it, to
take place in a wide variety of dierent
locations and at dierent times of year.
For example, in dry, wet, cold or hot cli-
mates, at dierent elevations, in dierent
types of soil and in places with dierent
disease or pest challenges.
• Diversity in terms of nutritional content,
which varies across dierent species and
within-species populations (varieties,
breeds and so on), increases the range of
options available for combining foods to
provide people with a balanced diet.
• e presence of dierent types of
organisms or biological communities
(including those managed for produc-
tion purposes) can give rise to various
kinds of complementarities and syner-
gies. For example, within a eld, sh
pond or forest stand, combining species
with dierent characteristics (root
lengths, feeding habits and so on) tends
to allow more ecient use of resources.
At farm scale (or among neighbouring
farms), combining dierent types of pro-
duction creates opportunities to recycle
materials that might otherwise be wasted
or become pollutants — for instance, use
of livestock manure as fertilizer for crops
and crop residues as feed for animals.
At a larger scale, a forest or grassland,
for example, may play a vital role in
regulating the supply of water to crop or
livestock farms.
• Diversity provides a form of insurance.
For example, if a drought or a disease
outbreak results in the failure of one
crop or the decline of one pollina-
tor population, the presence of others
reduces the risk of a devastating impact
on production. In many communities,
wild foods provide a fall-back option
when cultivated crops fail.
• Genetic diversity provides the ‘raw
material’ for adaptation through natural
selection, and for breeding programmes
aimed at increasing the productivity of
domesticated plant or animal popula-
tions or enabling such populations to
better cope with the challenges posed by
their production environments
Specific examples reported by
countries from around the world are
provided in Box 1.
Multiple interacting drivers of change
are affecting BFA. Reporting countries
indicated that a wide variety of drivers of
change, ranging in scale from global to local
and often interacting with each other, are
affecting BFA and its management. Changes
in land and water use and management
featured particularly prominently as negative
drivers. Responses related to economic and
cultural drivers were mixed (although with
negative effects more frequently reported
than positive ones). For example, countries
reported that demand for uniform products
that can be easily processed and retailed
is contributing to the homogenization of
production systems, but also mentioned
cases in which consumer demand for food
that is more varied, healthy or responsibly
produced is driving the introduction
or maintenance of biodiversity-friendly
production practices. The only two types
of driver for which positive effects were
more frequently reported than negative
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Crop diversity
in farmers’ fields
has declined
and threats
are increasing.
694 species
are reported
to be used
in aquaculture.
Global capture
fisheries harvest
over 1,800
species of animals
and plants.
.
Soil biodiversity
is under threat
in all regions
of the world.
Recent years have
seen massive
losses of coral
reefs globally.
Of 6,000
plant species
that have been
cultivated for food,
9 account for
66% of total
crop production.
33% of fish stocks
are estimated to be
overfished, 60%
to be maximally
sustainably fished and
7% to be underfished.
The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species
contains
over 9,600
wild food species
of which 20%
are considered
threatened.
The global area
covered by seagrass
is estimated to have
declined by 29%
in the last 100 years.
Of 7,745 extant
local breeds of
livestock reported
globally, 26% are
classified as at risk
of extinction.
Bee-colony losses
are on the rise;
17% of vertebrate
pollinator species
are threatened with
global extinction.
Over 70% of inland
and over 60% of
coastal wetlands
are estimated to
have been lost
since 1900.
Global
forest area
continues to
decline,
although the rate
of loss decreased
by 50% in recent
decades.
There are about
60,000
tree species
globally.
Many countries
report declines in
populations of birds,
bats and insects
that contribute to
pest and disease
regulation.
The world’s
mangrove area
declined by an
estimated 20%
between 1980
and 2005. These
vital ecosystems
remain widely
threatened.
Rangelands cover
at least 34% of
global land area.
They are among the
ecosystems most
affected by land
degradation.
Fig. 1 | Global state and trends figures for key elements of biodiversity important to food and
agriculture. Compilation of data presented in The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and
Agriculture12. From left to right, top to bottom: crop diversity3; crop production species18,19; local livestock
breeds20 (calculated on the basis of the data recorded in FAO’s Domestic Animal Diversity Information
System – DAD-IS); tree species21; aquaculture and fisheries species6,22; fisheries23; pollinators24; species
contributing to pest and disease regulation12; soil biodiversity25,26; wild foods27; wetlands28; mangroves29;
coral reefs30–32; seagrasses33; forests34; rangelands35,36 (rangeland area calculated from FAOSTAT land-
cover data for 2015 for the following categories: grassland; shrub-covered areas; shrubs and/or
herbaceous vegetation, aquatic or regularly flooded; and sparsely natural-vegetated areas).
Figure reproduced with permission from ref. 37, FAO.
NATURE FOOD | VOL 1 | MARCH 2020 | 144–147 | www.nature.com/natfood

146
comment
ones were policies (here it should be borne
in mind that responses came from national
governments) and innovations in science
and technology. Both are regarded as
potential means of mitigating the effects of
other drivers. Where positive policy impacts
are concerned, countries generally referred
to instruments focused on conservation or
environmental protection, particularly in
the food and agriculture sector. Reported
negative impacts included those caused by
policies that promote activities that can lead
to significant habitat destruction, such as
the construction of roads and dams. The
beneficial innovations referred to mostly
related to developments that allow producers
to reduce the use of environmentally
damaging inputs. These can include both
‘high-tech’ developments and developments
based on the use of BFA itself, such as more
effective management of soil biodiversity or
the natural enemies of pests.
BFA is declining. Information on the status
and trends of BFA is patchy, especially in the
case of invertebrates and microorganisms.
However, the best evidence available
indicates that many categories of species
and ecosystems that provide vital services to
food and agriculture are declining, including
pollinators, soil-dwelling organisms, forests,
grasslands, coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass
beds and wetlands in general (Fig. 1). Many
domesticated livestock breeds and crop
varieties are at risk of extinction, as are many
of the wild relatives of domesticated species.
The use of many biodiversity-friendly
practices is reported to be increasing.
Countries were invited to report on
trends in the implementation of a range
of biodiversity-based or potentially
biodiversity-friendly management practices.
Responses indicating upward trends
predominated for almost all combinations of
production system and management practice
(Fig. 2). Countries generally perceived
that these developments were benefiting
biodiversity. However, they emphasized the
need to improve knowledge of the impacts
of different management practices. They also
noted the challenges involved in upscaling
the implementation of practices identified
as biodiversity friendly. While conservation
activities, both insitu and exsitu, were
generally reported to be becoming more
widespread, countries indicated many gaps
in coverage. In many cases, conservation
programmes reportedly pay little specific
attention to ensuring that the supply of
ecosystem services to agricultural production
systems is maintained. Efforts to improve
the management of BFA are often hampered
by gaps in knowledge. Countries indicated
that even when species are recognized as
significant, their characteristics and specific
roles in ecosystem function have often
received little research attention.
Enabling frameworks for the sustainable
use and conservation of BFA remain
insufficient. Legal, policy and institutional
frameworks for the management of
BFA, including those related to research
and education, are often weak. Aside
from resource constraints, many countries
report a lack of effective mechanisms
for information sharing and collaboration
among stakeholders, particularly between
those in the food and agriculture sector
and those working on environmental
and wildlife issues. There is also recognition
that small-scale producers, many of
which play vital roles in the management
of BFA, are often poorly represented
in decision-making processes. Many
countries note the importance of
developing ‘joined-up’ strategies that
integrate the management of BFA into
wider efforts to promote the sustainable
management of natural resources and
improve livelihoods.
Management
practices and
approaches
Production systems
Livestock grassland-based
systems
Livestock landless systems
Naturally regenerated
forests
Planted forests
Self-recruiting capture
fisheries
Culture-based fisheries
Fed aquaculture
Non-fed aquaculture
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
Irrigated crop systems
(other)
Rainfed crop systems
Mixed systems
Landscape management
Ecosystem approach to
fisheries
Proportion of countries
reporting the PS that
report any trends (%
)
Restoration
Diversification
Home gardens
Agroforestry
Polyculture/aquaponics
0–9
10–19
Organic agriculture
Low external input
agriculture
20–29
30–39
Sustainable soil
management
Management of
micro-organisms
Stable
Increasing
Decreasing
Mixed trends
Conservation agriculture
Integrated plant nutrient
management
Integrated pest
management
Pollination management
Enrichment planting
Reduced-impact logging
Domestication
Base broadening
Fig. 2 | Countries’ evaluation of trends in the use of selected management practices and approaches.
Analysis based on 91 country reports. See ref. 12 for details of the methodology. PS, production systems.
Figure reproduced with permission from ref. 12, FAO.
NATURE FOOD | VOL 1 | MARCH 2020 | 144–147 | www.nature.com/natfood

147
comment
Policy response
The SoW–BFA ends with a call for urgent
action to address the decline of BFA and
promote its sustainable management. This
conclusion is backed up by the findings of
several other major recent global studies,
notably the Global Assessment Report on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services from the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services13
and the Special Report on Climate Change
and Land14 from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. There is
broad consensus about many of the key
threats facing biodiversity, and there are
numerous examples of success in terms
of implementing biodiversity-friendly
production methods and strategies. The
main missing ingredient in many cases
is political will on the part of national
governments. However, many practical
constraints also need to be addressed.
The Commission’s global assessments
have led to the adoption of global policy
instruments for genetic resources in the
crop, livestock and forest sectors7–10. While
the details vary from sector to sector, these
global plans of action share a number of
common features. First, the plans condense
the outputs of a wide-ranging country-
driven global assessment and a process
of intergovernmental discussion and
negotiation into a set of agreed priorities
for action. Although these global priorities
need to be translated back into specific
priorities at country level, they serve as
a guide to national planning efforts, help
to raise awareness among policy-makers
and provide a framework for monitoring
and reporting on implementation. Second,
they foster international cooperation and
coordination; for example by stimulating
the development of international guidelines,
standards and protocols for various
aspects of management, and by promoting
exchange of knowledge and expertise, joint
management initiatives and support for
capacity building in developing countries.
Although it is impossible to definitively
attribute improvements to the influence
of the global plans of action, evidence
suggests that many aspects of genetic
resources management received a boost
both in the period immediately following
their adoption and — where applicable
— over the longer term. For example,
many countries report the development
of national strategies and action plans for
genetic resources within particular sectors
of food and agriculture, better integration
of genetic resources issues into broader
national policies and/or the establishment or
strengthening of conservation, breeding or
monitoring programmes15–17.
The SoW–BFA shows that management
programmes and collaborative efforts
targeting associated biodiversity are
underdeveloped relative to those for
domesticated crops and livestock, forest
trees and species used in aquaculture,
both at national level and internationally,
and that cross-sectoral collaboration in
the management of all components of
biodiversity is not well developed either.
These findings imply that there is as much
need for a coordinated international
response for BFA as a whole as there has
been for sectoral components. A set of
draft global priorities for action on BFA
has been developed, and in February 2019
the Commission agreed that this text
should be further developed and negotiated
“with the motivation to have it adopted as a
Global Plan of Action” by the 2021
FAO Conference11, the highest governing
body of FAO.
While action should clearly
not be delayed because of ongoing
intergovernmental negotiations, a global
policy response in this field could help
increase the coherence and effectiveness
of efforts to protect and better manage
BFA. Whatever form such a policy response
may take, it will need to be carefully
integrated with other international
instruments in the field, particularly the
existing global plans of action and the
Convention on Biological Diversity’s
forthcoming post-2020 biodiversity agenda,
to ensure synergy and complementarity
and avoid duplication of work. Even more
importantly, it will need to be implemented
as a matter of urgency.
The views expressed in this publication are
those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. ❐
Dafydd Pilling, Julie Bélanger ✉ and
Irene Homann
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy.
✉e-mail: julie.belanger@fao.org
Published online: 24 February 2020
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0040-y
References
1. e State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (FAO, 1997).
2. e State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (FAO, 2007).
3. e Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2010).
4. e State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources (FAO, 2014).
5. e Second Report on the State of World’s Animal Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2015).
6. e State of the World’s Aquatic Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (FAO, 2019).
7. Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable
Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and
the Leipzig Declaration (FAO, 1997).
8. e Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources and the
Interlaken Declaration (FAO, 2007).
9. Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture (FAO, 2011).
10. Global Plan of Action for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and
Development of Forest Genetic Resources (FAO, 2014).
11. Report of the Seventeenth Regular Session of the Commission on
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, 18−22 February
2019 (FAO, 2019).
12. e State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture
(FAO, 2019).
13. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).
14. Climate Change and Land. An IPCC Special Report on Climate
Change, Desertication, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land
Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in
Terrestrial Ecosystems. (IPCC, 2019).
15. Synthesis Progress Report on the Implementation of the
Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources – 2014
(FAO, 2014).
16. Status of Implementation of the Second Global Plan of Action for
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2016).
17. First Report on the Implementation of the Global Plan of Action
for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Development of Forest
Genetic Resources (FAO, 2019).
18. Mansfeld’s World Database of Agriculture and Horticultural Crops
(IPK, 2017).
19. FA OSTAT (FAO, 2017).
20. Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) (FAO,
2017).
21. Beech, E., Rivers, M., Oldeld, S. & Smith, P. P. J. Sustain. Forest.
36, 454–489 (2017).
22. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics: FishstatJ – Global Production
by Production Source 1950–2016 (FAO, 2018).
23. e State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 – Meeting the
Sustainable Development Goals (FAO, 2018).
24. e Assessme nt Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food
Production of the Intergovernmental Science-policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2016).
25. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR) – Main Report
(FAO, ITPS, 2015).
26. Orgiazzi, A. etal. Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas (ESDAC, 2016).
27. e IUCN Red List of reatened Species Version 2017–3
(IUCN, 2017).
28. Davidson, N. C. Mar. Freshwater Res. 65, 934–941 (2014).
29. e World’s Mangroves 1980–2005 (FAO, 2017).
30. Hughes, T. P. etal. Nature 543, 373–377 (2017).
31. Hughes, T. P. etal. Science 359, 80–83 (2018).
32. Heron, S. F., Eakin, C. M. & Douvere, F. Impacts of Climate
Change on World Heritage Coral Reefs: A First Global Scientic
Assessment (UNESCO, 2017).
33. Waycott, M. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 12377–12381
(2009).
34. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How are the World’s
Forests Changing? (FAO, 2016).
35. Summary for Policymakers of the ematic Assessment Report
on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES, 2018).
36. FA OSTAT (FAO, 2018).
37. e State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture – In
Brief (FAO, 2019).
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the conception and design of
the paper. D.P. drafted the paper. J.B. and I.H. substantively
revised the paper.
Competing interests
All authors are employed by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, the work of which is
discussed in the paper.
NATURE FOOD | VOL 1 | MARCH 2020 | 144–147 | www.nature.com/natfood