{"id":103934,"date":"2024-12-14T02:37:00","date_gmt":"2024-12-14T01:37:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sonnenseite.com\/?p=103934"},"modified":"2024-12-13T09:37:55","modified_gmt":"2024-12-13T08:37:55","slug":"biodiversity-loss-due-to-agricultural-trade-three-times-higher-than-thought","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sonnenseite.com\/en\/science\/biodiversity-loss-due-to-agricultural-trade-three-times-higher-than-thought\/","title":{"rendered":"Biodiversity loss due to agricultural trade three times higher than thought"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Exporting agricultural products from tropical regions to China, the USA, the Middle East, and Europe is three times more harmful to biodiversity than previously assumed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Researchers from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the ETH Zurich have shown this by tracking how agricultural exports from 1995 to 2022 affected land use changes in the producing countries. Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Madagascar are particularly affected by species loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It has long been known that intensive land use in tropical regions impacts local biodiversity, but the role of trade has been underestimated, according to researchers from TUM and ETH Zurich. Previously, 20 to 30 percent of biodiversity loss in these regions was assumed to be due to agricultural exports. Livia Cabernard, Professor of Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agricultural Systems at TUM, along with Stephan Pfister and Stefanie Hellweg from the Institute of Environmental Engineering at ETH Zurich, have now demonstrated that international trade has caused more than 90 percent of the loss that occurred between 1995 and 2022 due to the conversion of natural areas into agricultural land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The team used data for the study that breaks down the global economy into sectors, regions, and ecological impacts. A significant difference from previous studies is that the researchers used satellite data to consider the entire development of an area, including after farming ceased. Older models did not take such fallow areas into account. Permanent species loss and the time needed for an ecosystem to recover were thus not reflected in earlier models.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The model also maps trade flows and how they affect land use in different regions. Over 80 percent of land use changes in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific region during the study period were due to increased agricultural exports. The leading importers of these goods are China (26 percent), the USA (16 percent), the Middle East (13 percent), and Europe (8 percent). Hotspots include Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Madagascar, where more than 50 percent of global species loss due to land conversion is recorded. In Madagascar and Brazil, the land is mainly used for livestock grazing, while rice and oilseeds (such as palm oil) are predominant in Indonesia. In Mexico, vegetables, nuts, and fruits are the main crops.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Outsourcing species loss has global consequences<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
For many importing countries, outsourcing agriculture has apparent advantages: the negative impacts on domestic biodiversity decreased as less land was used for agriculture, and there was an increase in conservation and restoration measures. This applies to countries like Spain, Italy, Greece, and the USA. At the same time, although biodiversity losses due to domestic consumption have decreased in Brazil and Mexico, overall losses have increased due to rising agricultural exports. \u201cThis is an alarming finding, as the threat to global biodiversity per square meter in tropical regions is a hundred times higher than in the importing countries,\u201d says Livia Cabernard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The species loss caused in this way has been underestimated as a problem. \u201cThe connections between global trade and biodiversity loss are highly complex but of great importance. We need to think about environmental impacts on a global scale and combine various measures to develop effective levers. Supporting domestic agriculture in countries like Germany and Switzerland, ensuring transparent supply chains, and pricing that reflects ecological damage would be important steps to avoid species loss in these hotspots. \u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n