Spatially Explicit Analysis of Biodiversity Loss Due to Global Agriculture, Pasture and Forest Land Use from a Producer and Consumer Perspective

Abstract

Anthropogenic land use to produce commodities for human consumption is the major driver of global biodiversity loss. Synergistic collaboration between producers and consumers in needed to halt this trend. In this study, we calculate species loss on 5 min × 5 min grid level and per country due to global agriculture, pasture and forestry by combining high-resolution land use data with countryside species area relationship for mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Results show that pasture was the primary driver of biodiversity loss in Madagascar, China and Brazil, while forest land use contributed the most to species loss in DR Congo and Indonesia. Combined with the yield data, we quantified the biodiversity impacts of 1 m(3) of roundwood produced in 139 countries, concluding that tropical countries with low timber yield and a large presence of vulnerable species suffer the highest impact. We also calculated impacts per kg for 160 crops grown in different countries and linked it with FAO food trade data to assess the biodiversity impacts embodied in Swiss food imports. We found that more than 95% of Swiss consumption impacts rest abroad with cocoa, coffee and palm oil imports being responsible for majority of damage.

Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Loss under Future Global Land Use Change Scenarios

“…This implies that if we accept the importance of biodiversity to human well-being [60], then even a dramatic shift towards sustainable pathways such as healthy diets, low waste, reduced meat consumption, increasing crop yields, reduced tropical deforestation, and high trade, for example, as specified under the RCP2.6 SSP-1 scenario, is not likely not enough to fully safeguard its future. Additional measures should focus on keeping the natural habitat intact through regulating land use change in species-rich areas [61], reducing the impact at currently managed areas through adoption of biodiversity-friendly forestry/agriculture practices [15] or restoration efforts [62], and further controlling the underlying drivers such as human consumption to reduce land demand [63,64].…”

Consumption‐Based Conservation Targeting: Linking Biodiversity Loss to Upstream Demand through a Global Wildlife Footprint

“…(), Chaudhary et al . (), and Chaudhary & Kastner () used the countryside species–area relationship to estimate global and regional species loss due to land conversion and international trade. The power‐law form of the species–area relationship used in these studies, however, has been called into question on both empirical and theoretical grounds (Harte et al .…”

The Ecological Cost Of Consumption

“…excluding the United States) were characterised by disproportionately high international trade-based impacts relative to their GDP. While many high-income countries (especially those in Europe) have, or are adopting, strong conservationbased policies that govern the activity of domestic industry 37 , the environmental protection provided by these policies does not currently encompass the impacts associated with internationally acquired resources 38 . Rather than protecting global biodiversity, as evidenced by the large international footprints attributed to the aforementioned countries, strong domestic environmental policies can result in the exposure of biodiverse regions to over-exploitation via the transfer of environmental pressure from local, highly governed industry, to poorly governed industries, the majority of which are in low-income or emerging market countries, and can operate in, or near biodiverse regions 39 .…”