4.3.3.1 Introduction

Globally, food production is responsible for about 25-30 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and is a major driver of biodiversity loss via land use change, degradation and deforestation (Ritchie, Rosado and Roser, 2002; Ritchie, 2021; Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Moreover, the food system-related emissions of short-lived climate pollutants such as methane (Fesenfeld, Schmidt, and Schrode, 2018) and agriculture-driven tropical deforestation (Pendrill et al., 2022) can accelerate tipping points in the Earth system, such as the dieback of the Amazon rainforest (Armstrong McKay et al., 2022). Production of animal products is a key driver of these impacts, via their own land use and methane emissions, and via the additional feed required to produce them in intensive systems (Pendrill et al., 2022; Poore and Nemecek, 2018; Springmann et al., 2018). 

The food system is not only a direct cause of the global climate and ecological crises, but is itself profoundly affected by them; globalised value chains are under increasing pressure, threatening food security and political stability worldwide (Pörtner et al., 2023). Diverse crises in the past three years, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian war in Ukraine have led to food price inflation and challenged the resilience of the global food system (Bai et al., 2022; Bogmans, Pescatori, and Prifti 2022; Sperling et al., 2020). The wave of anti-government protests, uprisings and violent conflicts that began in 2010, collectively known as the ‘Arab Spring’, may also have been triggered by food prices (see 2.4.4.4).

Defining priority targets for food system transformation in line with the SDGs, Paris and Biodiversity Agreement

Sustainable transformation of food and land use systems is urgent to comply with the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2016), and is also required to meet multiple international goals beyond this, including the SDGs (UN, 2015) and the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Agreement (Ainsworth, 2022; Allievi et al., 2019; Niles et al., 2018; United Nations, 2019). While in the short term certain trade-offs may exist between environmental, social and economic goals (Scherer et al., 2018), there are many positive synergies (Creutzig et al., 2022, Doelman et al., 2022) which can enhance reinforcing feedbacks; and trade-offs can be minimised by focusing on key priority targets and leverage points in food systems (Kroll, Warchold, and Pradhan, 2019). For example, avoiding food loss and waste and shifting to more plant-based diets and agro-ecological farming practices are key leverage points. 

Accelerating positive change

The pace of progress is not sufficient, but positive tipping points may be able to unlock rapid and cascading change to accelerate transformation of food and land use systems (Pharo et al., 2021; Lenton et al., 2022; Fesenfeld, 2022). The food system is a complex web of interactions across scales and sectors; from local scales between ecosystems, producers and communities, up to global scales between the biosphere, international markets, and technologies. As well as technological innovation, social norms and culture are important drivers and barriers for behavioural change across the food system. And the policy landscape, including taxes, subsidies and regulations, plays a key role at all scales (Fesenfeld et al., 2023; Pharo et al., 2021). All these interactions can be part of self-reinforcing feedback loops which can drive change for a more sustainable food system.

Many food system elements can have further cross-sector interactions – for example with energy and transport systems, which can generate either dampening or reinforcing feedbacks. Production of ammonia for fertiliser, for instance, is a globally significant energy use, currently contributing between 2 per cent and 5 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions; however, ammonia production has potential as an early market for green hydrogen (Box 4.3.6), which could in turn help to generate economies of scale that enhance its viability in other sectors (as discussed in Chapter 4.5 and in Meldrum et al,. 2023). Such cross-sectoral spillovers and cost reductions in technological learning, such as agri-photovoltaics and green-ammonia, can be mutually reinforcing and lead to potential tipping cascades (Fesenfeld et al., 2023; Meldrum et al,. 2023).

Box
4.3.6

A tipping point for green ammonia

Production of ammonia using renewable electricity, or ‘green ammonia’, is expected to be a significant lever for decarbonising fertiliser production, with at least 10 projects either operational or coming online in the near future (Meldrum et al,. 2023. Green ammonia production takes advantage of existing learning curves and rapid expansion in renewable energy deployment, and is also subject to a learning curve of its own. As the sector scales, a learning rate of up to 18 per cent cost reduction per doubling of output is expected (IRENA, 2022), and in turn lower costs are likely to drive greater deployment. Price parity with ‘grey ammonia’ is likely to represent a tipping point, and could be accelerated to be achievable this decade by a carbon price or equivalent subsidy of around $100 per ton CO2. It should also be noted that, in addition to improvingammonia production, emissions from fertiliser use can also be avoided by up to 70 per cent by optimising fertiliser use through practices such as improved crop rotation, precision application and dietary shifts (Systemiq, 2022).

Deliberate, rapid transformation of the global food system is not a novel idea. The Green Revolution (Box 4.3.7) comprised a set of initiatives launched in 1965-1966 with the aim of enhancing agricultural production and ensuring food security in the face of a growing world population. This concerted effort demonstrated remarkable success in reducing malnutrition and hunger, though it also led to inequalities and unintended consequences that remain important today.

Box
4.3.7

Historic case study for tipping points in the food system: The Green Revolution


The ‘Green Revolution’ describes initiatives launched in 1965-1966 that aimed to enhance agricultural production and ensure food security in the face of a growing world population. These included the introduction and widespread adoption of new agricultural technologies and practices such as high-yield crop varieties, synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, the expansion of irrigated land, and mechanisation. The Green Revolution also had a strong political dimension. Governments made boosting agricultural production a priority and coupled public policies supporting farmers with technology development to address hunger and malnutrition with great success. Yields grew substantially in the subsequent decades, resulting in nonlinear increases in agricultural productivity. In the 50 years since the beginning of the Green Revolution, the global population doubled from 3.5 billion to 7 billion people, while cultivated land expanded by a mere 12 per cent (Alston and Pardey, 2014; De Schutter, 2017). 

The Green Revolution had broad implications for the food system. It sparked a transformation in farming practices, from traditional subsistence farming to intensive, industrialised agriculture, dominated by economies of scale. This was accompanied by changes in land use patterns, water management strategies and consolidation of agricultural supply chains. The Green Revolution served as a catalyst for innovation in agricultural research and development, and led to the establishment of dedicated institutions and funding mechanisms for research and innovation. It also fostered collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and farmers, building information cascades which disseminate agricultural knowledge and technologies.

While the Green Revolution brought about nonlinear increases in productivity, it also raised concerns about its sustainability. Since 1990, the rate of agricultural productivity growth has notably slowed (Alston and Pardey, 2014), suggesting the possibility of reaching a plateau in productivity in high- and middle-income countries. Widespread use of synthetic inputs and the focus on monoculture farming has led to environmental degradation, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity and increased vulnerability to pests and diseases. Increasingly subsidised food production, which did not internalise external costs, also led to increased food waste and loss and allowed widespread adoption of diets that are inconsistent with human and planetary health. For instance, substantial subsidies directed towards major grain producers have resulted in the availability of large quantities of low-cost feed inputs for meat production. This, in turn, has fostered an overconsumption of meat in many affluent countries (Hawkes, 2006; De Schutter, 2017).

Increasing use of new technologies and fertilisers also led to growing demand for capital and ultimately created more market concentration. Large retailers had an increasing preference for sourcing from prominent wholesalers and processing firms, resulting in ‘mutually reinforcing dual consolidation’ (Farina et al., 2005). These self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms contributed to the concentration of power and resources within food production and distribution chains as global supply chains expanded (Gibbon, 2005). In turn, larger market players could exercise increasing political influence, shaping the way agricultural subsidies were tailored to specific types of producers, products and production methods. 

The Green Revolution stands as an example of a tipping point in the transformation of the food system. It revolutionised agricultural practices, boosted productivity and alleviated hunger and poverty on a global scale. However, it also demonstrates how tipping points can lead to suboptimal ‘shallower’ and unintended consequences that are not compatible with safe and just Earth system boundaries. 

Many questions remain when it comes to positive tipping dynamics in food system transformation: How can the potential trade-offs between social, economic and environmental goals for food system transformation be reduced and synergies leveraged? Which specific goals should be prioritised to minimise these trade-offs and accelerate food system transformation? And what are the most promising leverage points to take advantage of these synergies across different regions of the world to enable positive tipping points in line with these goals? Tackling this major challenge is only possible when taking a holistic systems-thinking approach that accounts for the different elements in the food system rather than focusing only on agricultural production or food consumption (Poore and Nemecek, 2018; Gaupp, 2020). 

Here we outline overarching priority goals for food system transformation in line with the SDGs, Paris Agreement and Biodiversity Agreement, and discuss historic and ongoing tipping dynamics in food system transformation with illustrative case studies. These goals are based on avoiding unnecessary GHG emissions and biodiversity loss by reducing food loss and waste; shifting to more plant-based diets and agro-ecological farming practices that enable farmland to store more carbon, support more biodiversity and provide other ecosystem services; and improving the availability of plant-based and other sustainable protein sources. These targets should thus be key priorities for decision makers (Lee et al., 2019; Frank et al., 2021).

Bezos Earth Fund University of Exeter logo
Earth Commission Systems Change Lab logo Systemiq logo
Global Tipping Points logo
Share this content
Top