Kopi fra DBC Webarkiv

(1)

Kopi fra DBC Webarkiv

Kopi af:

Globalizing land use transitions : the soybean acceleration

Dette materiale er lagret i henhold til aftale mellem DBC og udgiveren.

www.dbc.dk

e-mail: dbc@dbc.dk

(2)

Note

Globalizing land use transitions: the soybean acceleration

The land use changes have a major impact on the global CO₂ budget as well as on biological diversity. Hence, human land use decisions play a crucial role in driving changes in the land system and the dynamic interaction between socioeconomic and biophysical drivers of change (GLP, 2005). The complexity of the coupled human-environmental land system is widely acknowledged. The port- folio of primary drivers of change is continuously developing as a result of evolution or radical shifts in economic, social, cultural or environmental conditions. During the last couple of decades, a general trend has been that local factors are no longer the most significant determinants of agricultural land use decisions. The geographic scales of interaction have changed significantly in recent years with major implications for the ways in which we should best conceptualize and explore the dynamics of global land uses in order to enhance our basic understanding of people and the environment they inhabit.

The recent change in soybean production can serve as a prominent example of such new distant causalities underlying land use changes. The impressive and rapid land use alterations caused by the accelerating demand for land for soybean cultivation are fuelled by the growing demand for biofuel and for forage to support the production of animal proteins (the latter driven by population growth as well as general improvement in economic wealth).

The present note provides documentation of the magni- tude and geographical distribution of soybean cultivation.

First, by way of background, we introduce the concept of teleconnection and briefly summarize the agroecological characteristics of soybeans. The main aim of the paper is, however, to present a quantitative overview of the extent of the land transformations related to the rapid acceleration of global soybean production. We will consider the last 30 years of change and address the following questions: Which parts of the world have experienced the most pronounced shifts in land use related to soybean production? How have global production and trade of soybeans changed? The paper will conclude with a short discussion of the main causes of the changing global picture of soy production.

Cross-national trends in land use drivers

In our rapidly globalizing world, land demands are to an increasing extent driven by factors anchored elsewhere (Grenz et al., 2007; Haberl et al., 2009). Increased trade, expanding and faster transportation networks, and new electronic means of communication have major conse- Anette Reenberg & Nina Astrid Fenger

Abstract

This note presents the recent global development trends in soybean cultivation as derived from the FAO statistics. It focuses on the change over the course of the last thirty years, when significant new allocations of the global production have occurred, which have turned South America into a leading player on the global scale. It takes point of departure in a land change science approach and employs the notions of underlying and proximate drivers and telecon- nections to characterize the process of land use change in relation to the accelerating use of land for soybean cultivation.

Key words

Teleconnection, telecoupling, land use change, human-environment system.

Anette Reenberg (Corresponding author) Nina Astrid Fenger

Department of Geography and Geology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Email: ar@geo.ku.dk

Introduction

Land is a key parameter in Global Environmental Change.

The land change science community has for decades focused on the accelerating pressure on the Earth’s limited land resources (e.g. Lambin & Geist, 2006) caused by human-environmental interaction, and major research efforts have been invested in identifying and differentiating the proximate and underlying driving forces of land use and land cover changes at local to global scales. Turner et al. (2007) summarize the current state of insight by no ting that virtually all land has been affected in some way by human action and that much of this change is a direct consequence of land use: 40% of the Earth’s land surface is used for agriculture (including im- proved pasture and co-adapted grassland), which accounts for almost 85% of the annual fresh water withdrawal globally.

(3)

quences for environmental and socioeconomic sustainability. Hence, products derived from land use are often not consumed where they are produced, and biomass trade results in causal connections between distant places in the global land system (Erb, 2004; Erb et al., 2009).

The globalization of the economy (Najam et al., 2007) implies that local land use changes are increasingly driven by demands for products that are part of commodity chains with a large spatial span. Local human needs and local capi- tal input are not necessarily as important determinants for land use decisions as was the case in many land use systems before the global acceleration of the economy. In addition, the globalization of communication and knowledge has influenced global land use patterns through tech nological changes and developments, new ideas promoted by extension or development assistance, adoption of new food habits, etc.

The concepts of teleconnection or telecoupling have been employed to express these perspectives of globalization: the way an event or phenomenon in one corner of the world can have an impact far away. The notion of teleconnection has been adopted from the atmospheric sci- ences, where it refers to causal links between different weather systems (Wallace & Gutzler, 1981); teleconnection has been defined as “the correlation between specific planetary processes in one region of the world to distant and seemingly unconnected regions elsewhere.” (Steffen, 2006: 156).

The terms have recently gained attention in the land change science community (e.g. Seto et al., 2009; Lambin

& Meyfroidt, 2011) because they meet the apparent need to consider the importance of the mechanisms through which economic globalization drives land use change. Global trade in agricultural commodities, for example, amplifies reallocation of land use and has, as a result, a bearing on local conditions and incentives for land use choices.

The conceptual lenses of teleconnection are well suited to serve as a frame for the following quantitative study of the development of the global use of land for soybean production in which we will document the shifting regional importance of soybeans in the land use spectrum and how it is related to the major trends in international trade with soybeans.

Soybean production – main localities

Soybeans, Soja hispida or Glycine max, originate from China. The crop is primarily cultivated in warmer climatic

zones, but can be grown in temperate zones as well. From its origin in China, the cultivation spread to South America and, in the 1700s, to Europe. Currently it can be found in all parts of the world (Leff et al., 2004). It became a particu- larly important cash crop in the USA, Brazil and Argentina in the 1940s, 1960s and 1970s, respectively (Shurtleff &

Aoyagi, 2007).

It is currently to be considered one of the world’s leading crops in terms of acreage, together with wheat, rice, maize, barley and sorghum (Leff et al., 2004). In com- parison with these other leading crops, it is important to note that the soybean acreage has increased significantly whereas the acreage of the other crops has remained relatively constant with the exception of maize (Figure 1).

From 1980 to 2009 soybean acreage increased by 45% and maize by 21% (cf. FAOSTAT).

The increasing importance of soybeans should be seen against the background of its comparative advantages.

Soybeans have, compared to other crops, a high protein content. More than twice as much protein per hectare can be produced with soybeans than with the other main crops (soybeans contain in average 40% protein, as compared to approximately 16% for wheat, 12% for rice, 10% for barley, 10% for sorghum or 3% for maize). In addition, soybean is the only pulse that has a high content of oil.

This makes the soybean a crop that is well suited for a number of end uses. In Asia, it is an important food commodity. On a global scale, however, the dominant use is animal feed (accounting for approximately 85% of the total production, while the rest is used for biodiesel and human food (Soyatech, 2010)).

Methods and data

We take point of departure in data from the FAOSTAT database, including figures for production, acreage, import Figure 1: Source: FAOSTAT database.

(4)

and export. Only figures for non-processed soybeans are considered. We look at the 30 year period from 1980-2009, which represents the period of acceleration of the soybean cultivation. We look at the development at a continental scale (excluding Antarctic), as well as for five key countries which dominate the global production (Argentina, Brazil, China, India and the USA). We acknowledge that FAO data have, in general, been criticized for being inaccurate (Casson 2003; Ramankutty et al., 2008) and some of the data applied in the current context are labeled ‘unofficial figure’ or ‘FAO estimate’ (specifically data about import and export). The uncertainties have different causes (such as lack of uniform classifications, differences in accounting for fallow, etc.), but given that these data constitute the only available source to illustrate the trends in soybean production they are considered an acceptable option.

The changing country allocation

It appears from Figure 1 that the global amount of land used for soybeans has increased by almost 50% in the course of the last 30 years. Figure 2 shows the significant differ- ence in development trends between the main continents.

Until 2002, North America was a significant leader. South America has increased throughout the period and accelerated significantly in the mid-1990s, and hence took off from a level similar to Asia. In 2009 South America reached a level of 42.8 mill hectares as compared to 32.4 mill in North America.

The top five soybean cultivators (in terms of acreage) are shown in Figure 3. The USA has remained the leader throughout the period, but has lost in relative importance. In 2009, the USA had 30.9 mill hectares, Brazil 21.8, Argen- tina 16.8, India 9.6 and China 8.8. Number six on the world

ranking list is Paraguay, with only 2.6 mill hectares, so in effect, the ‘big five’ are unrivalled on the global soybean map.Figure 3 reveals the main development trends over the past thirty years. The USA had a small decline in soybean area until 1993, an increase in late 1990, and has been relatively stable until the present day with exception of a major decline in 2007. Brazil has had a continouosly increasing trend, with minor fluctuations. Argentina has also experienced a stable increase, with less fluctuations than Brazil, but with a drop in 2007 as in the USA. India has experienced increase, and China has been almost stable throughout the period and is currently far from being the soybean superpower it was at the beginning of the 20^th century (Shurtleff & Aoyagi, 2007).

Figure 4 shows development of the relative share of soybean land of the total acreage in the main production countires.

Figure 2: Source: FAOSTAT database.

(5)

Global soybean trade

A large proportion of the global soybean production is traded and used in other parts of the world than the country of production. The USA is by far the major exporter with 26-51% of its production entering into the international market (cf. Figures 5 and 6), closely followed by Argen- tina and Brazil. The export from Brazil has increased from 10 to 40% of the total production in the course of the last thirty years. In Argentina, the relative share of export has decreased in spite of an overall increase in the amount of soybean that is exported. It should be noted, however, that Agentina has had an increasing proportion of in-country processing of the soybeans before export. Hence, a relatively large share of the export from Argentina is not ac- counted for in the figure, which shows soybean export only.

On the import side (Figure 7) it makes sense to consider three groups. The first consists of China, which is by far the main importer (up to 39.5 mill. tons/year). A second group contains the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Spain and recently also Argentina (import 2-6 mill tons/

year). The third group contains Belgium, Italy, Portugal, the UK, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil and the USA (import up to 2 mill tons/year). Since the mid-1990s China has become the world’s absolute dominant importer of soybean, while it was a net exporter before 1995. Japan and the Netherlands are prominent importers throughout the period.

Figure 7: Importing countries in three groups, 1980-2008. Group 1: China. Group 2: The Netherlands, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Spain and recently also Argentina. Group 3: Belgium, Italy, Por- tugal, UK, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil and USA. Source:

FAOSTAT database.

(6)

Driving forces behind the changing soybean world map

The notions of underlying and proximate drivers of land use change have been widely adopted as useful to organize the wide range of factors that must be included to explain changes in land use across time and space (e.g. Lambin &

Geist, 2006). Using this lens, we will briefly discuss the development of the soybean in the global land use pattern presented above. The immediate, or proximate, drivers that appear most prominently in connection with soybean cultivation are agricultural expansion into land previously used for other purpose (grazing) or for natural habitats.

A large number of underlying driving forces have been decisive for this development. A full-scale discussion of these is beyond the scope of the present note, but we will point to selected important issues in the following.

Agroecological conditions

Temperature and soil type are important confining param- eters that determine the ultimate expansion domains of soybeans. The optimal temperature regime is 22-35°C in the growing season (Shurtleff & Aoyagi, 2007), and the

‘big five’ all have cropland in this temperature regime.

Brazil and Argentina have, in addition, high fertility soils that need little fertilization as well as large amounts of ‘non- used’ land (i.e. land not currently under cultivation). This explains the observed rapid growth (as compared to the USA where the amount of potential new cropland is scarce, and does not leave room for expansion) (Bennet, 2003).

The quality of the soybeans and the regional seasonal- ity influence the comparative advantage of producers on the market. For example, Brazilian soybeans have gener- ally higher protein and oil content as compared to soybean produced in the USA (4.5% more), which make them more attractive on the market. In addition, the harvest in Brazil takes place in the months of March-May as compared to the USA’s September-October, with corresponding com- plementary trade advantages (Shurtleff & Aoyagi, 2007).

The Brazilian production fluctuates significantly, however, due to the weather conditions. Hence, the variations in the soybean acreage presented above seem to correspond with the approximate four year cycles of the El Nino events (Lyndon College, 2010).

Tech nological factors

The new perspectives brought to soybean cultivation by genetically modified (GM) cultivars have had a major bearing on the cultivation and trade. More than half of the

soybeans produced (59% i 2007) are gene modified (GM) (GMO Compass, 2008), yet with significant differences between countries and regions, which may explain some of the development trends that can be seen.

GM soybeans have been widespread in the USA, Ar- gentina and Brazil since the mid-1990s and can possibly explain the accelerated growth in the two latter countries in the late 1990s. In 2007 85% of all soybeans in the USA were GM, while the figures were 98% and 64% in Argen- tina and Brazil respectively. India and China do not culti- vate GM soybeans at all (GMO Compass, 2008; Schober, 2010), partly because of potential environment and health impacts, and partly because of possible consequences for the export to the European market. It is estimated that 40%

of the total Brazilian production is non-GM which makes Brazil the largest producer of non-GM soybeans (Freire, 2010), a share that is expected to be maintained in order to be able to meet the demand of the European market, which is highly influenced by a general ‘consumer resistance’ to GM products.

Economic, demographic and political factors

The acceleration of soybean cultivation in South America was founded, locally as well as globally, on economic and political incentives. In the late 1970, Argentina and Brazil started national agricultural extension programs to coor- dinate research and development (Kueneman & Camacho, 1987). Investments in infrastructure, in terms of roads as well as soybean processing factories, were also important means to promote development of the sector (Shurtleff &

Aoyagi, 2007; Kingsland & Hamilton, 2009).

The general increase in demand for animal proteins, fuelled by population growth in general as well as by the increased wealth in developing economies such as China, has been a major reason for the rapidly increasing demand for soybeans as feed for livestock (notably pigs) in the course of the ‘livestock revolution’ (Song et al., 2006).

85% of the global soybean production is used for animal feed. The Chinese meat consumption grew from 25 kg/

capita in 1990 to 53 kg/capita in 2008 according to the World Resource Institute (Schober, 2010).

Cultural factors and climate adaptation measures Soybeans used directly for human consumption constitute, as mentioned, only a very small fraction of the total production, yet a small part of the recent increase can be explained by people’s growing attention to healthy foods and soy foods, primarily in the US and the EU (Robinson, 2004; Soyatech, 2010).

(7)

The recent explosion of interest in bioenergy has also added to the demand for soybeans. This is notably significant in the USA, where 80% of the biodiesel produced in 2002 came from soybeans (Fødevareministeriet, 2008). The variations in the soybean acreage shown in the diagrams above should, however, be interpreted keeping in mind the complex interrelation with other uses of land such as maize, which demand the same agroecological conditions.

An explosion in the demand for maize in 2007, for example, is clearly reflected in a corresponding decline in soybean acreage. This, in turn, is reflected in the trade figures, in terms of an increase in the amount of soybeans (or processed feed) imported by the USA to cover the demand for animal feed.

Global expansions and explanations

In the most recent decade, the global allocation of soybean cropland has shifted significantly. The USA is still the leading soybean producer, but since 2004 Brazil and Argentina have together more land allocated to this crop than the USA. The explanation is probably that most suitable land in the USA is already under crops. The increasing land allocation to soybean production in India seems to be mainly driven by national demands insofar as India does not figure much in the global soy trade. Soybean cultivation in China has stagnated; land is used for other crops or even lost because of soil erosion, degradation or urban expansion.

As mentioned in the introduction, the effects of globalization on the soybean cultivation pattern are becoming prominent, and a number of ‘teleconnection traits’ can be identified as playing a significant role in the soybean development trends. Demands for feed in distant places have major implications on the pressure on land for soybean cultivation in the major production regions. One trend can be illustrated by the pig producing countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, which rely heavily on the import of soybeans from Brazil and Argentina to sustain their production, which is then, in turn, exported to final consumers in other countries. Another trend is illustrated by major population hubs like China, which are importing feed to support their livestock production in order to meet the demands for meat on their national market.

Environmental issues

The location and allocation of soybean cropping and consumption has major implications for the environment at the local, regional and global scale. The large scale expansions in South America are taking place at the direct expense of globally unique nature. The forest savanna land (the Chaco in Argentina and the Cerrado in Brazil) are internationally unique habitats which are poorly protected by law. They are threatened by soy expansion (Brannstrom et al., 2008; Zak et al. 2008; Gasparri & Grau 2009).

Likewise, the tropical rainforest in Amazonia is under pressure as a result of the cascading effects of soybean cultivation pressuring grazing areas in the forest fringe and hence causing the cattle keepers to push the forest frontiers (Barona et al. 2010).

The complex teleconnections also have adverse effects on the environment at local scale in other locations of the production chain. In localities with large livestock production, low local self-sufficiency of feed and a huge meat export (like for example Denmark and the Netherlands), the local environmental regulations will have to deal with the challenge that the production creates a huge surplus in the nutrient budget.

Such a spatial decoupling of production and consumption in the food production chain creates major challenges as regards the institutional and economic mechanisms that are needed to enable a sustainable use of the sparse global land resources, while at the same time covering the global population’s basic food requirements.

Acknowledgements

The material presented in the present note has been com- piled for a bachelor thesis at the Department of Geography and Geology, University of Copenhagen. The work is based on the conceptual mindset of the Global Land Project, a global environmental change programme sponsored by the International Human Dimension Programme (IHDP) and the International Biosphere Geosphere Programme (IGBP), and hosted by the University of Copenhagen.

References

Barona, E., Ramankutty, N., Hyman, G. & Coomes, O. T.

(2010): The Role of Pasture and Soybean in Deforesta-

(8)

tion of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 5(2).

Bennet, D. (2003): World Soybean Consumption Quickens.

Available from: http://southeastfarmpress.com/world- soybean-consumption-quickens [Accessed 10 January 2011].

Brannstrom, C., Jepson, W., Filippi, A.M., Redo, D., Xu, Z. & Ganesh, S. (2008): Land Change in the Brazilian Savanna (Cerrado), 1986-2002: Comparative analysis and implications for land-use policy. Land Use Policy 25(4): 455-608.

Casson, A. (2003): Oil Palm, Soybeans & Critical Habitat- loss. A review Prepared for the WWF Forest Conver- sion Initiative. Schweiz. Available from: http://www.

worldwildlife.org/species/finder/tigers/WWFBinary- item15406.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2011].

Erb, K.-H. (2004): Actual Land Demand of Austria 1926 – 2000: A Variation on Ecological Footprint assessments.

Land Use Policy 21(3): 247-259.

Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Lucht, W. & Haberl, H. (2009):

Embodied HANPP: Mapping the Spatial Disconnect Between Global Biomass Production and Consumption.

Ecological Economics 69(2): 328-334.

Freire, A. (2010): Cert ID Certified ‘Non-GMO’ Soy Meal and Other Soy Products: Volumes available from South America and Worldwid. Available from: http://www.

keine-gentech nik.de/fileadmin/files/Infodienst/Doku- mente/10_07_01_cert_id_non_gm_soy.pdf [Accessed 09 January 2011].

Fødevareministeriet (2008): Jorden – en Knap Ressource.

Fødevareministeriets Rapport om Samspillet mellem Fødevarer, Foder og Bioenergi. Dansk Potentiale i et Internationalt Perspektiv. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Copenhagen. [in Danish]

Gasparri, N.I. & Grau, H.R. (2009): Deforestation and Fragmentation of Chaco Dry Forest in NW Argen- tina (1972-2007). Forest Ecology and Management 258: 913-921.

GLP (2005): Science Plan and Implementation Strategy.

IGBP Report No. 53/IHDP Report No. 19. Stockholm, IGBP Secretariat.

GMO Compass (2008): Soybeans. Available from:

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/

crops/19.genetically_modified_soybean.html [Accessed 12 January 2011].

Grenz, J., Vetouli, T., Tzitzikli, E. & Sauerborn, J. (2007):

Umweltwirkungen der globalen Sojawirtschaft. GAIA 16(3): 208-214. [in German]

Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Berecz, S., Ludwic- zek, N., Martínez-Alier, J., Musel, A. & Schaffartzik, A. (2009): Using Embodied HANPP to Analyze Tele- connections in the Global Land System: Conceptual Considerations. Geografisk Tidsskrift – Danish Journal of Geography 109(2):119-130.

Kingsland, M. & Hamilton, M. (2009): How Can Food be Produced Sustainably to Feed Growing Populations?

AAG Center for Global Geography Education. Avail- able from: http://globalgeography.aag.org/Population- andNaturalResources1e/CS_Argentina_July09/CS_Ar- gentina_July09_print.html [Accessed 11 January 2011].

Kueneman, E.A. & Camacho, L. (1987): Production and Goals for Expansion of Soybeans in Latin America.

Pp. 125-136 in: Singh, S.R., Rachie, K.O. & Dashiell K.E.: Soybeans for the tropics – research, production and utilization. Chichester, Joh n Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Lambin, E.F. & Geist, H.J. (2006): Land Use and Land Cover Change. Berlin, Springer Verlag.

Lambin E.F. & Meyfroidt P. (2011): Global Land Use Change, Economic Globalization, and the Looming Land Scarcity. PNAS 108(9): 3465-3472.

Leff, B., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J.A. (2004): Geo- graphic Distribution of Major Crops Across the World. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18. Pp. 27, doi:10.1029/2003GB002108.

Lyndon College (2010): Previous El Niño Years. Available from: http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/

chapter10/elnino.html [Accessed 26 December 2010].

Najam, A., Runnalls, D. & Halle, M. (2007): Environment and Globalization. Five propositions. IISD, Canada.

Ramankutty, N., Evan, A.T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J.A.

(2008): Farming the Planet. Part 1: The Geographic Distribution of Global Agricultural Lands in the Year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22. Pp. 19, doi:10.1029/2007GB002952.

Robinson, G. M. (2004): Geographies of Agriculture:

Globalisation, Restructuring and Sustainability. Essex, Pearson Education Limited.

Schober, T.M. (2010): Why Chinese Imports Stand to Alter Grain Markets. Available from: http://seekingalpha.

com/article/220740-why-chinese-imports-stand-to- alter-grain-markets [Accessed 27 December 2010].

Seto, K.C., de Groot, R., Bringezu, S., Erb, K.-H., Graedel, T. E., Ramankutty, N., Reenberg, A., Schmidt O.J. &

Skole, D.L. (2009): Stocks, Flows, and Prospects of Land. Pp. 71-99 in: Graedel T.E. & van der Voet, E.:

Linkages of Sustainability. Strüngman Forum Report 4.

Cambridge, MIT Press.

(9)

Shurtleff, W. & Aoyagi, A. (2007): History of World Soybean Production and Trade. A Special Report on History of Soybean Production and Trade Around the World. Available from: http://www.soyinfocenter.com/

HSS/production_and_trade1.php [Accessed 06 January 2011].

Song, B., Merchant, M.A. & Xu, S. (2006): Competitive Analysis of Chinese Soybean Import Suppliers – U.S., Brazil, and Argentina. Available from: http://agecon- search.umn.edu/bitstream/21109/1/sp06so03.pdf [Ac- cessed 22 September 2010].

Soyatech (2010): Soy Facts. Available from: http://www.

soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm [Accessed 22 September 2010].

Steffen, W. (2006): The Arctic in an Earth System Context:

From Brake to Accelerator of Change. Ambio 35(4):

153-159.

Turner, B.L., Lambin, E.F. & Reenberg, A. (2007): The Emergence of Land Change Science for Global Envi- ronmental Change and Sustainability. PNAS 104(52):

20666-20671.

Wallace, J.M. & Gutzler, D.S. (1981): Teleconnections in the Geopotential Height Field during the Northern Hemisphere Winter. Monthly Weather Review 109:

784-812.

Zak, M.R., Cabido, M., Cáceres, D. & Díaz, S. (2008):

What Drives Accelerated Land Cover Change in Central Argentina? Synergistic Consequences of Climatic, So- cioeconomic, and Tech nological Factors. Environmental Management 42(2): 181-189.