Climate change: food in the spotlight

The report published on July 13 by the FAO and other international institutions on food and nutrition security in the world[1] looks at the "hidden costs" of the food system. Rightly so: the bill paid by society to compensate for the effects of illnesses and diseases due to poor diets, as well as the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions linked to this sector, is equivalent to 50 %, on average, of the value of food. Despite the high degree of uncertainty attached to this figure, which varies greatly depending on the country, and its incompleteness (it does not include, in particular, the cost of damage resulting from the erosion of biodiversity), it is clear that in the current context of questions about the resilience of food chains and the threats posed by climate change and the impoverishment of ecosystems, any forward-looking thinking must examine the externalities, both negative and positive, linked to diets.

Let's focus here on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Overall, according to an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report cited by the FAO, food production, processing, and distribution are responsible for 21 to 37 % of all GHGs from human activities. How can we reduce this environmental footprint? The FAO presents simulations based on the adoption of four "diets" consisting of a diet "flexitarian", containing low to moderate amounts of animal products; a diet "pescetarian", including moderate intakes of fish but no other meats; a vegetarian diet, including moderate amounts of dairy products and eggs, without meat or fish; finally, a diet "vegan", based solely on plant products. Compared to the current diet, the adoption of these alternative diets would, in 2030, significantly reduce GHG emissions linked to food: from 41 % (for the flexitarian diet) to 74 % (for the vegan diet) (chart)This decline would be mainly due to the reduction or even the total cessation of the consumption of animal products, considered to be the source of 77 % of GHG emissions linked to food (including 41 % for beef and lamb and 25 % for dairy products).

Chart : adoption of any of the four alternative healthy diet patterns could significantly reduce projected diet-related GHG emissions in 2030

The FAO denies taking sides with any of the diets studied—while indicating, with some reservations, that they are in line with the experts' recommendations—and it is easy to understand why. The results of these simulations put the lives of hundreds of millions of livestock farmers and the viability of entire sectors of economic activity at stake. The publication of this data by the leading international organization with expertise in food matters also provides involuntary but robust support for the meat substitute industries (plant-based "steaks," lab-grown meat) and milk, which, according to their promoters, promise a brilliant future. But these results are misleading, because, as the report acknowledges, many countries, especially the poorest, should instead eat more animal products, and more fruits and vegetables, to improve the health of their populations. To meet their energy and protein needs, they will have to increase their GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly (i.e., by importing food). This is what a study carried out in France by INRAE (National Institute for Agricultural, Food and Nutrition Research) suggests, at the request of Pluriagri.[2] : If sub-Saharan Africa were to adopt a diet that complies with World Health Organization standards in 2050, it would increase its food calorie consumption by an average of 8 % compared to continuing its current diet. In West Africa, the increase would even be 10 %.

Another remarkable finding from the FAO report is the geographical distribution of food-related GHG emissions, according to the income level of countries. Assuming that current consumption patterns continue, nearly three-quarters of these emissions in 2030 would be due to emerging countries, i.e. "middle income", according to the World Bank classification[3]Within this category, countries in the lower income bracket – India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Senegal, etc. – alone account for half of global food-related GHG emissions. Those in the higher income bracket – China, Brazil, South Africa, etc. – account for just over 20%.

Emerging countries, which account for the majority of the world's population and generally have the highest economic growth rates, therefore hold the key to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions related to food. They have little room for maneuver, as maintaining food security for their populations and increasing rural incomes, which are often much lower than those of urban dwellers, are conditions for government stability. Their international commitments to combat climate change are therefore very limited.

High-income countries, for their part, would emit less than 15 % of GHGs associated with the food system in 2030. While changing eating habits in these countries is often highly desirable, particularly to combat obesity, their effectiveness in combating climate change on a global scale is limited.

Finally, low-income countries – located mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and where agriculture is still a major source of employment – are responsible, according to the FAO, for just over 10% of global food-related GHG emissions. However, they could significantly increase their emissions in the coming decades by producing more food to reduce their reliance on imports, at the risk of expanding their cultivated areas to the detriment of grasslands and forests.[4].

The FAO report rightly highlights the complexity of the transformation of food systems. This transformation is driven by socio-economic and cultural determinants of such strength and inertia that they prohibit any rapid change. Pointing out the excessive consumption of beef in Argentina or rice in Indonesia may be justified in terms of nutritional criteria, but it also undermines the identity of these countries and the implicit pact established between farmers and society. While food offers, on paper, enormous potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is feared that this potential will be very difficult to express in the timeframe allowed by the climate emergency. Under these conditions, helping farmers adapt to extreme events – droughts, floods, storms, etc. – whose intensity and frequency will be accelerated by climate change, should mobilize at least as much attention and resources.[5].

[1] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome, FAO.

[2] INRAE, 2020. The role of European agriculture in the world by 2050. Between climate issues and global food security challenges.

[3] According to the World Bank classification, middle-income countries have an income (in 2019) between 1,036 and 12,535 $ per capita. This category is subdivided into lower-middle-income countries (1,036-4,045 $ per capita) and upper-middle-income countries (4,045-12,535 $ per capita).

[4] See the FARM blog posts, “2050 Outlook: High Pressure on Land in Africa,” February 24, 2020, and “Agriculture, a Major Cause of Deforestation in Africa,” June 23, 2020.

[5] See McKinsey Global Institute, “How will African farmers adjust to changing patterns of precipitation? Case study”, May 2020, https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/sustainability/our%20insights/how%20will%20african%20farmers%20adjust%20to%20changing%20patterns%20of%20precipitation/mgi-how-will-african-farmers-adjust-to-changing-patterns-of-precipitation.pdf