Even if safe operating practices were adopted on each hectare of agricultural land, the overall consumption of agricultural resources could lead to land use changes beyond globally acceptable levels. This happens when the demand for land-based products exceeds levels of sustainable supply, causing an expansion of cropland into high-value nature areas to meet this extra demand. This could be a result of distorted price signals (e.g. subsidized consumption of non-food biomass) or possibly also a rebound—i.e. consumers drive more with certified biofuels, thereby increasing demand. For these reasons, consumption-based approaches are not only necessary to adjust consumption toward sustainable levels, but may also be an effective way to trigger life-cycle wide improvements in the efficiency of food and non-food biomass use.
ASSESSING GLOBAL LAND USE
Balancing consumption With sustaina Ble supplyBox 3. Production and consump-
tion oriented policies need to com-
plement each other
Production-oriented targets may only address half of the picture, especially in global markets where domestic production can be usurped by imports. For instance while cattle numbers declined by 34% and consumption of domestic beef decreased by 40% between 1990 and 2004 in Germany, the consumption of products from cattle (meat, milk, dairy products) remained more or less the same (in absolute quantities as well as in calories) (FAOSTAT). The land used for animal production within Germany also remained rather constant during this time period (BMELV 2006), largely because feed production became more extensive, leading to a larger area used per animal. One reason may be that farmers were subsidized according to the amount of acreage they cultivated, considering cross compliance with environmental requirements. The reduction and extensification of domestic production was compensated by increased imports and the overall global land requirements rather increased. On the other side of the coin, consumption-targeted approaches alone may be less effective for achieving domestic environmental targets when excess production can be exported. Tukker et al. (2011) modelled the environmental impacts of a healthier diet in Europe (toward nutrition guidelines, in particular with less red meat consumption) and found that environmental impacts could be reduced by about 8%. However, modelling of secondary rebounds suggested that the European meat production sector would likely export more meat, reducing the environmental benefits of decreased consumption within Europe. While this may reduce environmental pressure in those countries exported to, Tukker et al.’s analysis suggests that policies stimulating diet changes alone are probably not enough if the goal is to reduce domestic environmental impacts of food consumption; a bundle of policies targeting consumption and production seem appropriate.
Governmental interventions deliberately targeting consumption patterns may be considered unacceptable in liberal market economies. In reality, however, governments already steer consumption significantly. For instance, tax, tariff, and subsidy policies increase the desirability of some products while making others unattractive or unavailable. Safety and performance standards shape and constrain choice for everything from food to cars (Maniates 2010). The government
‘choice-edits’42, for example by banning environmentally
harmful products like CFCs and, recently in Australia and some EU countries, incandescent light bulbs. As Maniates (2010) points out, the real worry is that for decades such activities have been used to encourage a culture of consumerism that makes mass consumption appear to be both natural and the foundation of ‘healthy’
economies and human happiness. For this reason, the
government, along with business, would have to play a major role in shifting societies away from systems of mass consumerism. A starting point could be tackling consumerism of land-based products, but far-reaching efforts for all natural resources are also needed.
It is not only government’s responsibility to ‘tackle’ consumption. A report published by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) on sustainable consumption begins with the statement: “We recognize the need for business to play a leadership role in fostering more sustainable levels and patterns of consumption, through current business processes such as innovation, marketing and communications, and by working in partnership with consumers, governments and stakeholders to define and achieve more sustainable lifestyles” (WBCSD 2008). The report emphasizes that business has a role to play, for instance by choice influencing—using marketing and awareness- raising campaigns to encourage consumers to make sustainable choices—and through choice editing— removing unsustainable products and services from the market. It also highlights that in order for consumers to be able to change behaviors and make informed purchasing decisions, they need the support of business, governments and civil society.
Relying on consumer choice alone is not an effective strategy. Research has shown, for instance, that consumer awareness of environmental problems does 42 Choice editing describes instances where governments and/or busi-
5
Opti O ns f O r sust aining gl O bal use O f landnot necessarily translate into consumer willingness to pay extra for environmentally friendly goods or to adopt sustainable consumption practices. Sustainable consumer choices are hindered by a number of barriers, including availability, affordability, convenience, product performance, conflicting priorities, skepticism and force of habit (WBCSD 2008). Consumers are also heavily influenced by marketing—global advertising expenditures hit $643 billion in 2008 (Assadourian 2010). They may also be confused by the multitude of product labeling systems which they are confronted with on a daily basis. For instance, the ecolabel index
website43 has compiled a database of 377 ecolabels in
211 countries and 25 sectors, with 127 of these labels dedicated to food alone.
While harmonization and transparency of labeling and certification are needed to help consumers keep
track of different schemes and make informed choices,
evidence on the capability of ecolabels to transform mainstream behavior is diverse. According to a Mintel survey in 201044, more than a third of U.S. consumers say they would be willing to pay a premium for eco- friendly products. Almost 40% of German consumers said they were influenced by the best-known eco label in Germany, “Blauer Engel“ (UBA 2010). The rapidly expanding market for organic food in North America and Europe (comprising more than 90% of sales in organic food worldwide) seems to indicate that consumer choices can lead to changes in the market. The global market for organic food expanded 170% between 2002 and 2011, reaching $63 billion in global sales in 2011 and covering an estimated 37.2 Mha (FiBl and IFOAM 2013; Soil Association 2013). Nevertheless, the market share (e.g. around 4% in the US (Soil Association 2013)) and the agricultural land share (around 0.9% of agricultural land in the 162
countries surveyed45) is relatively small, indicating that
these trends have not, yet, reached the mainstream. 43 http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ Accessed 10 May 2011 44 http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/press-releases/514/are-
americans-willing-to-pay-moregr-een-to-get-more-green 45 By the latest FiBL-IFOAM (Research Institute of Organic
Agriculture and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) survey on organic agriculture worldwide (FiBl and IFOAM 2013).
Indeed, surveys in the UK revealed that only a minority
of shoppers seemed to be influenced by eco-labeling schemes (Maniates 2010, DEFRA 2008). A study analyzing promising transformations in consumer cultures in the UK concluded that the green consumer has not traditionally been the tipping point for green innovation, but rather interventions by government and business to edit out less sustainable products has been the determining factor (SDC and NCC 2006).
While price and suspicions of “green washing” may hamper labeling schemes, a more inherent problem for transformational change may be rooted to people’s behavior and choice architecture. Values and emotions may influence people’s choices more than facts. As regards purchasing decisions, influences such as group identity and status seeking may undermine “sustainable consumption” efforts in cultures which value materialistic wealth. As regards attitudes towards waste and waste generation, (modern) richness seems to be associated with wastefulness in several cultural settings. For instance, there is a physiological limit (when dietary requirements are fulfilled) supporting the decoupling of income growth and food consumption. However, higher amounts of food waste in high-income-regions prevent such a decoupling. Facts about global environmental challenges are unlikely to motivate the levels of public engagement needed to meet these challenges without also addressing underlining cultural values like social status and financial success (WWF 2010).
Consumption-targeted strategies may also contribute to large gains. For instance, Bringezu et al. (2009b) estimated that in Germany it would be feasible to
save around 1,200 m2 of land per person with just
three demand-side measures: reducing the total fuel
consumption of cars by 26-30%46 and phasing out
first generation biofuels, reducing the consumption of animal-based food products to a level recommended by the German Society for Nutrition, and reducing the share of wasted (or waste) food products in households and retail trade (Table 5.2). Such strategies will be further discussed in section 5.3.3.