By Abbie S. A. Chapman, Selase Kofi Adanu, Carole Dalin, Adam Devenish, Geoffrey H. Griffiths, Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson, Barbara Adolph, Phil Franks, Tagel Gebrehiwot, Jacob Mwitwa, Nathalie Seddon, Joseph A. Tobias, and Tim Newbold

Banana farm, Lusaka, Zambia. Bananas had a greater than expected trade-off risk in all three countries studied. (Photo Credit: Vije Vijendranath, via unsplash.com).

This Plain Language Summary is published in advance of the paper discussed. Please check back soon for a link to the full paper.

Globally traded crops, like oil palm and cocoa, tend to have a reputation for being worse for the environment than those produced for local consumption, such as maize, or wheat. However, as most previous research has focused on measuring the environmental impacts of cropland, rather than specific crops, it is unclear whether this reputation is warranted. Land used for agriculture is the greatest driver of biodiversity loss, so it is important to improve land-use decision-making if we want more sustainable agriculture. Yet, to date, scientists have not measured biodiversity impacts associated with different crops as much as other environmental impacts like greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and carbon.

Our work measures and maps the potential risks associated with growing specific crops in areas rich in wildlife. Focusing on Ethiopia, Ghana, and Zambia, we mapped where farmers produce crops in areas rich in species to see where overlap between wildlife and agriculture was strongest. We focused on these countries because they are likely to expand their agricultural production in the coming years due to local and international demand, but have different economic and environmental conditions, so could reveal different types of risk.

Our research found that both traded and domestic crops pose a risk to biodiversity and that the risk varied most according to crop type and the region of the country it is grown in. Traded crops did not consistently pose the higher risk. As we didn’t identify one crop or type of crop posing a consistently higher risk to species, our research shows that policymakers won’t be able to simply swap crop types or change areas of land that people use for farming to reduce the trade-offs between agriculture and biodiversity. Instead, we will need further field research in the areas of highest risk to see which farm types are best for biodiversity to learn and build strategies for other areas. We also need countries importing crops to do their bit for the countries producing their food, to ensure that healthy ecosystems are maintained to support crop production long into the future.