News

Mexico has banned the use of both glyphosate and genetically modified corn in the country. On December 31, a decree was published in the official gazette which states that the use of the herbicide glyphosate and genetically modified (GM) maize will be phased out by January 2024 at the latest. “With the purpose of contributing to food security and sovereignty and as a special measure to protect native corn, the milpa, the biocultural wealth, the peasant communities, the gastronomic heritage and the health of the Mexican people, the biosafety authorities (…) will revoke and refrain from granting permits for the release into the environment of genetically modified corn seeds,” announces article 6 of the decree. The decision was welcomed by environmental campaigners, while Mexican agroindustry representatives criticised the government’s decision.

With regard to the controversial weedkiller glyphosate, article 1 of the decree aims “to gradually replace the use, acquisition, distribution, promotion and importation of the chemical substance called glyphosate and of agrochemicals used in our country that contain it as an active ingredient, with sustainable and culturally appropriate alternatives that allow to maintain production and are safe for human health, the country’s biocultural diversity and the environment.” A transition period until 31 January 2024 is granted to achieve the total replacement of glyphosate. Based on article 2, glyphosate may not be used in any public programmes or government activities during this period. The decree also calls on agricultural producers and agroindustry to use and develop sustainable alternatives. “In order to reduce the possible impact of the gradual substitution of the use and import of glyphosate in commercial agriculture, the Secretariats of Agriculture and Rural Development and of Environment and Natural Resources will promote and implement sustainable and culturally appropriate alternatives to the use of glyphosate, either with other low toxicity agrochemicals, with biological or organic products, with agroecological practices or with intensive use of labor,” outlines article 3.

The decree also introduces a ban on genetically modified corn with the same transition period as for glyphosate. Mexico will not only revoke existing permits and stop new authorizations for the release of GM corn, but also gradually reduce imports “in accordance with the applicable regulations and based on criteria of sufficiency in the supply of corn grain without glyphosate”. Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced policies to strengthen the country’s food self-sufficiency. Mexico, the birthplace of corn and home to dozens of local varieties, is largely self-sufficient in corn for human consumption, a staple food used to prepare tortillas and other traditional dishes. However, the country depends on imports of GM corn from the United States to feed livestock. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US exported corn worth $2.7 billion to Mexico in 2019. There is no cultivation of GM corn in Mexico and the cultivation of genetically modified soybean was suspended in the country in 2017 following a court injunction. However, an area of 223,000 hectares was planted with GM cotton in 2019 according to biotech lobby organization ISAAA.

Opponents of GM crops and environmental organisations hailed the ban. Environmental group Greenpeace Mexico said that, after countless battles over the last 21 years, the decree is a reason to celebrate. “The time has come to settle the historical debt to genetic diversity in Mexico, and we celebrate the ban on genetically modified maize and the progressive ban on glyphosate by 2024, as these are important steps in moving towards ecological production that preserves the biodiversity and agro-biodiversity that has been cultivated by peasants over millennia, giving us the opportunity to enjoy a healthy environment and a green and fair agro-food system.” Homero Blas Bustamante, president of the Mexican Society of Organic Production (SOMXPRO), also welcomed the ban of glyphosate and GM corn. “It’s a huge victory”, he told Reuters. He said that organic farmers both in Mexico and globally are demonstrating that glyphosate is not necessary in agriculture and that like other agrochemicals it should be banned on the basis of the precautionary principle. In contrast, agroindustry and the private sector were not amused. The Mexican organisation Proccyt which represents the crop protection industry, called the decree a backward step, warning it could affect the entire Mexican countryside and endanger the stability of prices and the availability of corn. (ab)

What we eat and how it is produced will need to change dramatically to prevent widespread biodiversity loss, according to new research published in “Nature Sustainability” on 21 December. If current agricultural trends continue, between 2 and 10 million square kilometres of new agricultural land could be cleared by 2050, mainly at the expense of natural habitats. An international research team has now projected that almost 90% of species could lose part of their habitats. “We estimated how agricultural expansion to feed an increasingly wealthy global population is likely to affect about 20,000 species of mammals, birds, and amphibians,” explains lead author Dr David Williams from the University of Leeds. “Nearly 1,300 species are likely to lose at least a quarter of their remaining habitat, and hundreds could lose at least half. This makes them far more likely to go extinct,” he warned. But there is hope: Future biodiversity losses could be reduced by adopting healthier diets, cutting down on food loss and waste, increasing crop yields and implementing global land-use planning. “We need to alter both our diets and food production methods,” says Williams.

The researchers developed a model to forecast where agricultural land is likely to expand based on observed historical changes in agricultural land cover from 2001 to 2013 and data on likely determinants of land-cover change, such as the suitability of an area for agricultural production, proximity to other farmland or market access. By linking this model to country-level estimates of agricultural land demand between 2010 and 2050, based on population sizes, per capita GDP and agricultural yields, they were able to project where, and by how much, agricultural land was likely to change in the future. The scientists then overlaid these forecasts with habitat maps for almost 20,000 species of amphibians, birds and mammals. They used a very fine spatial resolution of 1.5 × 1.5 km which allowed them to determine exactly which species and landscapes are likely to be threatened and they looked at whether those specific species can survive in farmland or not. This allowed them to calculate the proportion of habitat each species would lose from 2010 to 2050.

The researchers found that under business-as-usual, global cropland could increase by 26% or 3.35 million km2 from 2010 to 2050. Large increases are projected to occur throughout sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia (particularly Bangladesh, Pakistan, and southern Malaysia) and in northern Argentina and much of Central America. These increases are driven by “income-dependent transitions towards diets that contain more calories and larger quantities of animal-based foods, combined with high levels of projected population growth and low crop yields that are projected to increase slowly, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa,” the authors write. The scientist projected that, if current trajectories continue, 87.7% of species (17,409 species) would lose some habitat by 2050, while 6.3% would have no change in habitat area and 6.0% would see an increase because they can live on agricultural land. However, the authors highlight that mean values conceal the severity of projected habitat losses for many species. By 2050, 1,280 species could lose at least 25% of their remaining habitat area and could be at increased risk of global extinction in the coming decades. More alarmingly, 347 species were projected to lose at least 50% of their remaining habitat, 96 at least 75%, and 33 at least 90%. Many of the species that are likely to be most affected are not listed as threatened with extinction, and so are unlikely to be currently targeted by conservationists.

The scientists highlight that “proactive policies targeting how, where, and what food is produced could reduce these threats, with a combination of approaches potentially preventing almost all these losses while contributing to healthier human diets.” To investigate the potential of such proactive approaches, they developed a scenario that implemented four changes to food systems: closing crop yield gaps globally, a global transition to healthier diets, halving food loss and waste, and global agricultural land-use planning to avoid competition between food production and habitat protection. They examined both a ‘combined approach’ scenario and the impacts of each approach individually. The simultaneous adoption of all four scenarios would reduce global land demand by 2050 by nearly 3.4 million km2 relative to 2010, and by 6.7 million km2 relative to business as usual. Under the combined approach, all regions would just see mean habitat losses of 1% or less by 2050 – only 33 species were projected to lose more than 25% of their habitat, compared with 1,280 under business-as-usual.

The impacts of individual approaches varied regionally. For example, increasing yields would bring huge benefits in North Africa, West Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, where large yield gaps remain, but the scientists also warn that increasing yields often has negative consequences for species within agricultural lands. In contrast, yield increases would have a small impact on biodiversity in North America, where yields are already close to their maximum. Transitioning to healthier diets and reducing food waste were projected to have considerable benefits particularly in wealthier regions with high per capita consumption of both calories and animal-based foods. However, shifting to healthier diets is less likely to have a large benefit in regions where meat consumption is low and food insecurity is high. Global land-use planning had smaller impacts, with 1,026 species still projected to lose at least 25% of their 2010 habitat. Sub-Saharan Africa would benefit most from this measure. The scientists say that looking at the impact of each approach individually can help policy makers and conservationist to identify which changes are likely to have the largest benefit in their country or region. “Importantly, we need to do all of these things,” said Dr Michael Clark from the University of Oxford, who is also a lead author on the paper. “No one approach is sufficient on its own.” The authors stress that focusing on conventional conservation actions, such as establishing new protected areas or legislation for threatened species, is not enough. The underlying drivers of agricultural expansion need to be addressed. “The good news is that if we make ambitious changes to the food system, then we can prevent almost all these habitat losses,” Clark added. The authors conclude: “These proactive efforts to change how we produce and consume food will be a major challenge, but one which cannot be avoided if we are to safeguard species for future generations.” (ab)

About 385 million cases of acute pesticide poisonings occur each year worldwide, causing around 11,000 deaths. This is the sad finding of a study published on December 7th in the peer-reviewed journal “BMC Public Health”. According to the study, unintentional, acute pesticide poisonings on farms across the globe have risen dramatically since the last global assessment 30 years ago. The systematic review was commissioned by Pesticide Action Network (PAN), a network of over 600 participating non-governmental organizations, institutions and individuals in over 90 countries working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides. “These findings underscore the urgency of reducing and eliminating the use of highly hazardous pesticides,” says Kristin Schafer, coordinator of PAN International. “These pesticides are causing the unacceptable poisoning of those who produce our food, but also chronic health effects such as cancer and ecological impacts such as the collapse of biodiversity. Time for global action is long overdue.”

In 1990, a task force of the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that about one million unintentional pesticide poisonings occur annually, leading to approximately 20,000 deaths. The figures were calculated using data from the 1980s. It was further estimated in 1990 that there were 25 million cases of mild intoxications each year, the bulk of which were not recorded, as most farmers did not seek medical attention. Those outdated figures are still pervasive in literature today due to the lack of updated global estimates. The new study now closes this gap. The authors carried out a systematic review of the scientific literature published between 2006 and 2018, selecting 157 papers after assessing a total of 824 articles for eligibility. They extracted a total number of 741,429 unintentional pesticide poisonings from the publications, including 7,508 fatalities. Most studies had a focus on occupational poisoning in farmers and agricultural workers. In addition, mortality data from the WHO cause-of-death database was used. Thus, the study covers a total of 141 countries. Then the researchers performed country-wise synopses and estimated the annual numbers of national unintentional, acute pesticide poisonings (UAPP). Finally, the total number of UAPP was estimated based on national figures and population data for regions defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The researchers arrived at an estimated 385.5 million pesticide poisonings each year, resulting in 10,881 fatalities. This means that about 44% of the global population working on farms – 860 million farmers and agricultural workers – are poisoned every year. The study found that the greatest number of non-fatal poisoning cases occurred in southern Asia, followed by Southeast Asia and East Africa. The highest single national incidence was found in Burkina Faso, where nearly 84% of farmers and farm workers experience unintentional acute pesticide poisonings each year. The prevalence is also very high in Pakistan and Kuwait with around 82% respectively. The rate was also quite high in India with 62%. The lowest rate was found in the United States where the incidence of yearly non-fatal UAPP among the farming population is only at 0.05%. Nearly 60% of all fatalities occur in India, indicating serious problems with pesticide use, according to the researchers.

The estimated number of global non-fatal unintended pesticide poisonings in the current study is significantly higher than in previous estimates from the 1990s. “It’s shocking and shameful that this problem has gotten worse rather than better over the past 30 years,” said Sarojeni Rengam, Executive Director of PAN Asia Pacific. According to the authors, this is in part because the current study covers a greater number of countries, and also because pesticide use increased by almost 81% between 1990 and 2017. In South America, the increase in the same period was even at 484% and there was a 97% increase in Asia, compared to a decrease in Europe of 3%, according to data from FAOSTAT. “So, many more farmers and workers are likely to be exposed to pesticides now globally, or more exposed through more frequent use,” the authors write. However, the researchers also assume that the true figures of pesticide poisoning and fatalities could be much higher because underreporting remains a huge problem. Many countries lack a central reporting systems or there is not a mandatory legal duty to report incidents. People suffering from acute pesticide poisoning may also not seek medical care for various reasons, such as access to transportation or lack of medical facilities or financial capacity. “We realize there are limitations in the data on pesticide poisonings,” notes Javier Souza, PAN Latin America’s coordinator. “But this study clearly shows this as a serious, global problem that warrants immediate action. Highly hazardous pesticides must be phased out by 2030 to meet global Sustainable Development Goals, and we must shift to healthier and more resilient systems like agroecology.” The study did not cover pesticide poisoning suicides but it points to a recent systematic review of data on suicides from 2006-2015, which found that pesticides accounted for 14-20% of global suicides leading to 110,000-168,000 deaths annually during the period 2010-2014. (ab)

Land inequality is significantly higher than previously thought and is rising in most countries, new research shows. The largest 1% of farms operate 70% of the world’s farmland, according to the report “Uneven Ground”. This trend directly threatens the livelihoods of up to 2.5 billion people worldwide involved in smallholder agriculture. The study published on Tuesday by the “International Land Coalition” (ILC) and Oxfam is based on 17 research papers as well as an analysis of existing data and literature. “In the framework of this project, a new way to measure land inequality was developed that goes beyond land size distribution captured through traditional agricultural census,” said Ward Anseeuw, co-author of the report and coordinator of the initiative. Land inequality is typically measured with the Gini coefficient for land distribution which is based on household surveys recording ownership and area of holdings by size. Although it provides a useful long-term perspective on land inequality, it does not take into account aspects such as the value of land, multiple ownership and landlessness, as well as the control a person or an entity has over it. These factors have now been considered, using a sample of 17 countries. “These findings radically alter our understanding of the extent and far reaching consequences land inequality has, proving that not only is it a bigger problem than we thought but it’s undermining the stability and development of sustainable societies,” Anseeuw added.

It is estimated that there are around 608 million farms in the world, and most are still family farms. However, the largest 1% of farms operate more than 70% of the world’s farmland and are integrated into the corporate food system, while over 80% are smallholdings of less than 2 hectares are generally excluded from global food chains. A very similar trend is seen in the EU where less than 3% of farms now account for more than half of the farmed land. The study finds that the wealthiest 10% of the rural population across sampled countries capture 60% of agricultural land value, while the poorest 50% of the rural population, who are generally more dependent on agriculture, control only 3% of land value. Compared with the traditional census data and Gini coefficient generally used, this is an increase in inequality of 41% if agricultural land value and landlessness are considered, and of 24% if only value is considered. In addition, there are large regional differences: If land value inequality and the landless population are considered, South Asia and Latin America exhibit the highest levels of inequality. The top 10% of landowners capture almost 75% of agricultural land in Latin America and close to 70% in South Asia, while the bottom 50% own less than 2%.

The growing land inequality is partly attributed to the increased interest from corporate and financial actors, such as investment funds, in agricultural land investments. “Land inequality and control over land are increasingly opaque,” the authors write. “Shareholdings in agricultural assets, particularly land, are not made public, with corporate entities and investors able to acquire parts of farms or multiple farms as assets. In addition, the ultimate beneficiaries and major investors in these corporate and financial firms, especially investment funds, are often unknown.” Yet the authors insist that land concentration is not inevitable. “What we’re seeing is that land inequality is fundamentally a product of elite control, corporate interests, and political choices. And although the importance of land inequality is widely accepted, the tools to address it remain weakly implemented and vested interests in existing land distribution patterns, hard to shift,” said co-author Giulia Baldinelli of ILC. Coordinated state action is needed to turn this situation around. If not addressed and the trend continues, increasing land inequality will have significant negative consequences for all societies, on economic and social development, on the environment and on democracy and peace. “There is always, however, a more inclusive path to re-building our economies, that emphasises sustainable use of natural resources, respects human rights and addresses systemic causes of inequality,” says Mike Taylor, Director of the ILC Secretariat. The report also includes a blueprint for action, recommending a number of meausures that can contribute to reducing land inequality. They call on governments and relevant decision-makers to democratise land governance, strengthen land-related regulation as well as transparency and monitoring of land holdings, invest in well-functioning land registries, and legally enforce responsible corporate practice – just to name few recommendations. (ab)

People in four food insecurity “hotspots” in the world are at the brink of famine, a new report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) and the UN World Food Programme (WFP) has warned. Burkina Faso, northeastern Nigeria, South Sudan and Yemen need urgent help or they could slide into famine if conditions there undergo any further deterioration over the coming months. “We are at a catastrophic turning point. Once again, we face the risk of famine in four different parts of the world at the same time,” said Margot van der Velden, WFP Director of Emergencies. “When we declare a famine it means many lives have already been lost. If we wait to find that out for sure, people are already dead,” she added. The “Early Warning Analysis of Acute Food Insecurity Hotspots” report was released on November 6th. It uses the Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) system to chart escalating degrees of food insecurity which include five phases. IPC phase 5 (Catastrophe/famine) is the most severe. Within the four hotspot countries, parts of the population are facing emergency acute food insecurity (IPC Phase 4) – a critical hunger situation with extreme depletion of livelihoods, insufficient food consumption and high acute malnutrition. In the case of Burkina Faso, many households are already in IPC Phase 5 and are experiencing famine-like conditions. The number of desperately hungry people in the country has almost tripling compared to 2019, driven by increasing conflict, displacement and COVID-related impacts on employment and food access.

But these four hotspots are not the only countries painted in red on the world map published in the report. Another 16 countries are at high of facing potential spikes in high acute food insecurity, driven by multiple overlapping drivers, such as conflict, economic decline, climate extremes and the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, there are 21.8 million people now estimated to be acutely food insecure - the highest number ever registered for a single country. The report has the aim to inform decision-makers in order to avoid a major emergency - or series of emergencies - in the coming months. “This report is a clear call to urgent action,” said Dominique Burgeon, FAO's Director of Emergencies and Resilience. “We are deeply concerned about the combined impact of several crises which are eroding people's ability to produce and access food, leaving them more and more at risk of the most extreme hunger. We need access to these populations to ensure they have food and the means to produce food and improve their livelihoods to prevent a worst-case scenario.” How the situation evolves in high-risk countries will depend on conflict dynamics, food prices, and the myriad impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their food systems, rainfall and harvest outcomes, humanitarian access, and the readiness of donors to continue funding humanitarian operations, FAO and WHO informed in a press release. The UN agencies called for urgent action from the international community and reminds us to learn our lesson from the crisis in Somalia. “In 2011, Somalia suffered a famine that killed 260,000 people. The famine was declared in July, but most people had already died by May. We cannot let this happen again. We have a stark choice; urgent action today, or unconscionable loss of life tomorrow,” van der Velden warned. (ab)

COVID-19 is at least the sixth global health pandemic since the Great Influenza of 1918, and although it has its origins in microbes carried by animals, like other pandemics its emergence has been entirely driven by human activities. This is the message of a new report released on October 29th which was compiled by 22 experts from around the world who were convened by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) for a workshop about the links between degradation of nature and increasing pandemic risks. “There is no great mystery about the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic – or of any modern pandemic,” said Dr. Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance and Chair of the workshop. “The same human activities that drive climate change and biodiversity loss also drive pandemic risk through their impacts on our environment. Changes in the way we use land; the expansion and intensification of agriculture; and unsustainable trade, production and consumption disrupt nature and increase contact between wildlife, livestock, pathogens and people. This is the path to pandemics.” Land-use change alone has globally caused the emergence of more than 30% of new diseases reported since 1960. And there is more to come: It is estimated that another 1.7 million currently ‘undiscovered’ viruses exist in mammals and birds of which up to 827,000 could still infect people.

The good news is that pandemic risk can be significantly lowered by reducing the human activities that drive the loss of biodiversity, for example by greater conservation of protected areas, and through measures that reduce unsustainable exploitation of regions which are rich in biodiversity. Such measures would reduce wildlife-livestock-human contact and help prevent the spillover of new diseases, says the report. However, this will require a seismic shift in approach from reaction to prevention. “The overwhelming scientific evidence points to a very positive conclusion,” said Dr. Daszak. “We have the increasing ability to prevent pandemics – but the way we are tackling them right now largely ignores that ability. Our approach has effectively stagnated – we still rely on attempts to contain and control diseases after they emerge, through vaccines and therapeutics. We can escape the era of pandemics, but this requires a much greater focus on prevention in addition to reaction.” Like in most other areas, the costs for reaction measures are much higher than for prevention. The experts estimate the cost of reducing risks to prevent pandemics to be 100 times less than the cost of responding to such pandemics, “providing strong economic incentives for transformative change.” In addition, relying on responses to diseases after their emergence, such as public health measures and the design and distribution of new vaccines and therapeutics is a “slow and uncertain path”, which entails widespread human suffering and economic damage to the global economy.

The report also offers a number of policy options that would help to reduce and address pandemic risk. “The fact that human activity has been able to so fundamentally change our natural environment need not always be a negative outcome. It also provides convincing proof of our power to drive the change needed to reduce the risk of future pandemics – while simultaneously benefiting conservation and reducing climate change.” In order to reduce the role of land-use change in pandemic emergence, the experts recommend the following policies: In major development and land-use projects, health impact assessments should be developed and implemented regarding the risk of pandemics before those projects are allowed to begin. Financial aid for land-use should be reformed so that benefits and risks to biodiversity and health are recognized and explicitly targeted. National governments should consider removing subsidies for activities that involve deforestation, forest degradation and land use change. Moreover, decision-makers should enable transformative change in the types of consumption, globalized agricultural expansion and trade that have led to pandemics. “Unsustainable patterns of global consumption drive globalized agricultural expansion and trade, and are linked to pandemic risk, as well as land use change, biodiversity loss and climate change,” the authors explain. “Increasing available knowledge on the economic benefits of more sustainable consumption and agricultural development could be used to drive an added incentive in a shift to agriculture that focuses on provisioning of ecosystem services, while responding to the needs of food security for local communities and encouraging human, animal and ecosystem health.” (ab)

Most protected habitats and species in Europe have either a poor or a bad conservation status. Unsustainable farming and forestry, urban sprawl and pollution are the top pressures to blame for a drastic decline in biodiversity, warns the European Environment Agency (EEA) in a new report published on October 19. It describes the state of nature in the EU during the period from 2013 to 2018, based on Member States’ reporting under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives, which coordinate conservation efforts for more than 2,000 species and habitats across the EU with the aim of maintaining them at or restoring them to a favourable conservation status. Although the report shows some positive developments in conservation efforts, the main message is unambiguous: The survival of thousands of animal species and habitats in the EU is at threat and much more needs to be done to reverse this trend. “This State of Nature assessment is the most comprehensive health check of nature ever undertaken in the EU,” said Virginijus Sinkevičius, Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries. “It shows very clearly that we are still losing our vital life support system. (…) We urgently need to deliver on the commitments in the new EU Biodiversity Strategy to reverse this decline for the benefit of nature, people, climate and the economy.”

The reporting under the Birds Directive includes population statuses and trends for 463 bird species that naturally occur in the EU. Around half (47%) of those bird species have a good status, which is 5% less than during the last reporting period (2008-2012). However, the proportion of birds with poor or bad status totals 39%, up by 7% from 2008-2012. 14% of all bird species have an unknown status due to the lack of information about their population size and trends. Short-term trends for breeding birds are mixed: 23% of breeding birds have increasing populations whereas 30% have decreasing trends. Breeding birds, such as the Crane and the Red Kite, have the highest share of reports showing improving population trends. The majority of all bird species with improving trends are wetland and marine birds, such as the Ruddy Shelduck or the Black Guillemot. The authors say that this is due to the implementation of habitat protection or restoration, and improvements in knowledge, better monitoring and awareness. Short-term population trends for farmland birds reveal that 54% are deteriorating. Breeding bird populations showing decreasing short-term trends in almost 50% of all Member States include the Grey Partridge, the Red-backed Shrike and the Corncrake.

The data reported by Member States under the Habitats Directive covers 233 habitats and 1,389 species. “A majority of EU wide protected species, such as the Saker Falcon and the Danube Salmon, and habitats from grasslands to dunes across Europe, face an uncertain future unless more is urgently done to reverse the situation,” says the EEA in a press release. As much as 81% of habitats at EU level are in poor (45%) or bad (36%) condition. Compared with the previous reporting period, the share of habitats with bad conservation status has increased by 6%. Only 15% of habitats have a good conservation status and for 4% the status is unknown. Looking at habitat trends, only 9% of all habitat assessments with poor or bad conservation status show improvement, while 36% continue to deteriorate. Grasslands, dunes, and bog, mire and fen habitats show strong deteriorating trends, while forests have the most improving trends. Around a quarter (27%) of species have a good conservation status at EU level, which is an increase of 4%, compared with the previous reporting period. Nonetheless, over 60% of the assessments report a poor or bad status (42% and 21% respectively). Reptiles such as the Italian Wall Lizard and the Horseshoe Whip Snake and vascular plants, such as the Hairy Agrimony or the Great Yellow Gentian, have the highest proportion of good conservation status (35%), while fish have the highest proportion of bad conservation status (38%). Marine mammals are among the species with the highest proportion of unknown status.

Unsustainable farming and forestry are the top pressures to blame for a drastic decline in Europe’s biodiversity. “Although the drivers of habitat degradation and species decline are diverse, agricultural activities such as abandoning extensive management and intensifying management practices are the most common pressure overall,” the authors write. Fertilisers and the use of pesticides are reported to have a considerable impact on many habitats and species. The report says this holds especially true for plant protection chemicals and their effects on amphibians, insects, mammals – mainly bats but also small mammals such as the European Ground Squirrel or the European Hamster – and birds. Urbanisation is the second largest pressure on nature. Other drivers of biodiversity decline are pollution of air, water and soil, as well as continued over-exploitation of animals through illegal harvesting and untenable hunting and fishing. These threats are compounded by alterations to rivers and lakes, such as dams and water abstraction, invasive alien species, and climate change. “Our assessment shows that safeguarding the health and resilience of Europe’s nature, and people’s well-being, requires fundamental changes to the way we produce and consume food, manage and use forests, and build cities,” said Hans Bruyninckx, EEA Executive Director. “These efforts need to be coupled with better implementation and enforcement of conservation policies, a focus on nature restoration, as well as increasingly ambitious climate action, especially in the transport and energy sector,” he added. (ab)

Changing the dominant food system is indispensable in order to reset our relationship with nature and overcome today’s ecological crises, according to the new report “Right to Food and Nutrition Watch”. This year’s edition was published ahead of World Food Day on October 12th by “The Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition”, an initiative of 49 civil society organisations and social movements. The authors argue that past and current policies have treated humans and the rest of nature as two separate and independent spheres. This artificial separation has led to domination and exploitation of the natural world by humans with dire environmental and social consequences, such as the destruction of ecosystems, greenhouse gas emissions and the expulsion of communities from their lands. In order to tackle the ecological crises, it is therefore essential to reconnect nature and human rights. And the authors highlight that food, where our connection with the rest of the living world is most evident, is the perfect starting point for doing so. The articles in the 2020 edition of the Watch call for an overhaul of how we produce, distribute and eat food – if we are to regain control and radically transform our societies – but also, of how we collectively resist the exploitation of nature.

The first article by Philip Seufert from FIAN International, a human rights organisation, looks at the aforementioned separation of humans from the rest of nature. He argues that this separation is central to the deep ecological crises that the world is facing and which manifest most strongly in human-made global warming as well as the dramatic loss of biological diversity. He warns that both climate change and the current mass extinction will deeply affect human societies because we cannot escape from these massive consequences. The author says that the current COVID-19 pandemic is yet another development which forces us to reassess our relationship with the rest of nature. The separation of human societies from the rest of nature is also reflected in a largely disconnected development between international human rights law on the one hand, and environmental law on the other. Seufert focuses on how human rights instruments such as the “UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” and the “UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas” could better clarify the human-nature relationship and advance the protection of local communities as custodians of ecosystems.

In the second article, Hernando Salcedo Fidalgo from FIAN Colombia looks at the links between the coronavirus pandemic and corporate food patterns: “It is evident that today’s societies, and their current food practices, have contributed – through so-called ‘modern food systems’ – to the biodiversity crisis and to the increased risk of existing and new zoonotic diseases, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Ecosystem fragility has facilitated the transmission of infections across animal species, as well as of zoonoses from animal species to human beings and vice-versa.” The author says that beyond the mainstream scientific response that centers on medication and vaccines, other solutions are needed. The article puts forward an exit strategy to the crisis via six proposals that build on the notion of “food agency”. One of them is to leave behind the corporate food model. “This is only possible through peasant, Indigenous, family and community agriculture, and agroecology led by women, who have demonstrated their capacity to feed the world,” writes Salcedo Fidalgo. Another proposal is: “Defend our commons, such as ‘real’ food, water, space, and biota, to ensure they are exchanged and shared, outside market interests.”

The Watch also includes an interview with Marta Guadalupe Rivera Ferre, director of the Chair in Agroecology and Food Systems of the University of Vic. She participated in the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) and was one of the lead authors of the chapter on food security in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Special Report on Climate Change and Land” (see also the link to her chapter in the book “Transformation of our food systems” at the end of this text). Her chapter in the IPCC Special Report which was published in 2019 addresses agroecology, but only in the context of food security. “We looked at food security, in all its dimensions, and how they are impacted by climate change, as well as how food systems impact climate change in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Then, we had discussions on synergies and trade-offs, where we talked about agroecology,” she told interviewer Katie Sandwell. “We wanted to show how some agricultural and agroecological practices, like capturing organic matter in the soil, intercropping, crop rotation, etc. can contribute to both mitigation and adaptation.” The authors' aim was to demonstrate that if the focus is put on agroecology, a more integrated response to climate change can be achieved. (ab)

Donor governments could help end hunger by 2030, double smallholder farmer incomes and protect the climate by doubling the amount of aid given for food security and nutrition each year, new research shows. According to the findings of the international research consortium “Ceres2030”, an additional investment of $14 billion from donors and $19 billion from affected countries on average each year between now and 2030 could lift 490 million people out of hunger, reducing the prevalence of undernourishment below 3% in every country worldwide. The scientists also found that agricultural interventions are more effective with a population that enjoys at least a minimum level of income and education and has access to networks and resources such as extension services and robust infrastructure. “Ceres2030: Sustainable Solutions to End Hunger” is a joint 3-year project by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Cornell University, and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The results were published on October 12th in ten articles in four different journals of the “Nature” family, authored by 78 scientists, researchers and librarians from 23 countries. Among the main funders of Ceres2030 is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the initiative already earned criticism at its launch for pushing an agribusiness agenda and its focus on productivism. The Ceres2030 “Evidence Adivsory Board” includes scientists who are linked to institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and others.

The Ceres2030 team produced two inter-linked pieces of research. First, they analysed over 500,000 reports and articles from the past 20 years of agricultural development literature, using artificial intelligence. The evidence syntheses answered eight key research questions covering areas such as water scarcity and employment for the future. Second, the researchers created a model to show how much it would cost to achieve three targets of the second Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 2), namely ending hunger (Target 2.1), doubling the incomes and productivity of small-scale producers (Target 2.3), and producing food sustainably and resiliently (Target 2.4). The model assessed what types of interventions governments should prioritize, and when (and where) money should be spent, in order to end hunger as cost-effectively as possible. The researchers concluded that $33 billion a year will be needed in additional funding in the period up to 2030. Of the $14 billion required from donors, $8 billion should be spent in sub-Saharan Africa, $4 bn in other low- and middle-income countries, and the remainder on global research and development projects. They total amount was also split into three categories of interventions: $9 bn should be spent “On the farm” for measures such as training for farmers, $2 bn should be directed at what the researchers termed “Food on the move”, i.e. measures which ensure that food can get from the farm to market, through investments in storage, transport, and other infrastructure. The remaining $3bn should be used to empower the excluded.

The authors set out 10 key recommendations for donor governments, drawing on both the evidence syntheses and economic modelling, and split across the three categories of interventions. In the “Empower the Excluded” category, the first recommendation is to support participation in farmers’ organizations. The research showed that membership in a farmers’ organization was associated with positive effects on income in 57% of the cases reviewed. However, the poorer farmer are, the less likely they are to join an organization because fees to join farmers’ organisations are a barrier for poor households. Second, the authors recommend more investment in vocational programs for rural youth that offer integrated training in multiple skills because vocational training can help increase employment levels and wages. Third, social protection programs should be scaled up in order to help create a bridge for people living in poverty to find productive jobs. “Although expensive, well designed programs, given sufficient time, can help poor people into productive work—for example by providing skills training, access to credit, or guaranteed employment alongside food or cash payments. Social protection has played a critically important role in limiting suffering during crises, including for people unable to work due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ceres2030 informs on their website.

Other recommendations focus on interventions “on the farm” and on smallholders. “Perversely, the very people whose livelihoods depend on food and agriculture are among the most likely to experience hunger. Small-scale food producers and workers and their families are among those most often left out of economic growth, technological change, and political decision making,” the report summary reads. Recommendations include investment in information and training, particularly for women, to increase the uptake of new technologies. The report summary does not specify what kind of technologies are meant. In addition, the authors say that it must be ensured that new environmentally-friendly farming methods are also economically viable, arguing that incentives that also included short-term economic benefits were more successful. Next, they call for the adoption of climate-resilient crops by providing extension services. The article about this topic includes much talk about "the adoption of improved agricultural production technology” and “climate-smart agriculture”. Next, the authors recommend to increase research on how to help small-scale producers in water-scarce regions. They found that nearly 80% of small-scale farms in developing countries are in water-scarce regions and useful options to improve the quantity and quality feed are being overlooked, such as better support for the use of crop residues. Therefore, their recommendation is to target improvements in the quantity and quality of livestock feed to small and medium-sized commercial farms.

The last two recommendations are related to the “Food on the Move” category. “In addition to growing our food, producers must also store it and transport it to market. Our research looked at interventions that are effective at reducing post-harvest losses for 22 food crops, with a focus on Africa and South Asia,” the Ceres2030 team wrote. They found that airtight containers, simple improvements in handling practices (such as choosing the right time to harvest), and good drying and harvesting practices reduced the waste of cereals and pulses. They also said investment in the infrastructure, regulations, services and technical assistance is needed to support small and medium-sized enterprises that supply or buy from small-scale farmers. The scientists highlight that governments have 10 years until 2030: “The sooner the investments are made in the 2030 Agenda, the less it will cost the public purse and the more sustained the outcomes are likely to prove.” Moreover, there is a further reason for urgency: the need to act now to limit irreversible damage to the earth’s ecosystems. For the environment, too, waiting means foreclosing options, some of them permanently, they explain. “Ceres2030 was set up to show governments what they need to do to take back control and realize their bold agenda. We’ve provided the evidence. Now donors and governments need to act,” the authors conclude. (abe)

The COVID-19 pandemic exposes sharp injustices and system wide failures of today’s prevailing food and agriculture systems - injustices that had already been accelerating over the past decade, which has proven to be the most destructive period of food production and consumption in modern history. In their new book “Transformation of our food systems - the making of a paradigm shift”, 40 international experts describe the highlights and trends in food production since 2009, when the ground-breaking IAASTD report was published, starting a paradigm shift in the perception of the global food system.

Will COVID-19 and its impacts on world food systems catalyse a real transformation of highly dysfunctional and destructive practices all along the food chain? “Business as usual is not an option” was the provocative message of more than 400 authors of the UN- and World Bank-led International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, published in 2009. It is probably still the most comprehensive assessment of global agriculture. One decade later there seems to be worldwide agreement amongst most international scientists, politicians, civil society and businesses, that our food systems are in urgent need of a fundamental transformation in order to withstand the enormous challenges of today and tomorrow. The climate and biodiversity crises, unprecedented exhaustion of natural resources, rising malnutrition and its health impacts are amongst the most pressing reasons for this. This past decade was the most destructive period of food production and consumption ever – not only with respect to ecosystems, but also the social and cultural fabric of rural communities around the globe.

In their book “Transformation of our food systems – the making of a paradigm shift”, 40 eminent food system experts, most of them authors and review editors of the initial IAASTD, have now taken stock of the developments of global food systems over the past decade. Presenting 13 follow-up landmark scientific reports and UN agreements as well as 15 updates and 13 infographics on key emerging trends and topics, the authors take the reader on a journey to the most important developments. They have been personally involved in the making of many of these reports, and they take a look behind the scenes of politics and science.

World Food Prize winner and former co-president of the IAASTD Hans Herren, together with an NGO representative in the IAASTD bureau, food and farming activist Benny Haerlin, convened an IAASTD+10 advisory group of 16 to help edit the book and compile its key messages. “This combination of international views and perspectives is a treasure trove for decision-makers and activists, scholars and practitioners along the food systems chain,” said Benny Haerlin. “It not only talks about transformation, it also shows how it can be done and where it is already happening.”

The book is published in the run-up to this year’s only virtual High Level Special Event of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), where for the first time agroecology will be at the centre of discussions and where decision-makers will also reflect about global efforts needed to “build back better” after COVID-19. “This book clearly proves from various perspectives that the agroecological approach is by far the most important and fundamental pathway to ‘build back better’ and to make the shift towards sustainable food systems,” says Hans Herren. The book is also a critical contribution to the “Food Systems Summit 2021”, being organized under the auspices of the United Nations.