Mapping Carbon and Biodiversity Losses in Agriculture
New global study maps overlapping carbon and biodiversity losses in agriculture
A new global mapping study has found that carbon storage loss and biodiversity loss in agriculture are strongly overlapping. Approximately two-thirds of both losses occur on just one-third of agricultural land. The research also links the biggest impacts to food consumption patterns, particularly animal-sourced foods such as beef and milk.
The study, titled High-resolution carbon and biodiversity mapping shows correlated losses across space and agricultural products, was published in Nature Food in 2026. It maps environmental losses across global agriculture at high spatial and product resolution. Importantly, the research traces impacts through international supply chains rather than looking only at production locations.
For UK businesses working on net-zero commitments or supply chain sustainability, the findings offer new evidence about where food-related impacts concentrate geographically and which product categories drive the most significant environmental harm. The study provides a detailed view of how consumption choices in one country can generate environmental losses in another through traded agricultural products.
Geographic concentration reveals efficiency opportunities for businesses
The research reveals that two-thirds of agricultural carbon and biodiversity loss occurs on one-third of agricultural area. This concentration suggests that targeting a relatively small share of agricultural land could deliver outsized environmental gains. The highest-loss regions are often co-located, although the northern hemisphere tends to show greater carbon loss while the southern hemisphere shows greater biodiversity loss overall.
The mapping highlights major hotspots in Mexico and Central America, Brazil, West Africa, India, China, and Southeast Asia. According to the study's authors, these are regions where agriculture is either highly intensive or is located in ecosystems that naturally store large amounts of carbon and contain high biodiversity. Brazil is the largest net exporter of both carbon and biodiversity losses, while China is the largest net importer.
For businesses reviewing their supply chains, these geographic patterns matter. Companies sourcing agricultural products from these hotspots may face higher environmental footprints than those sourcing from other regions. This becomes particularly relevant for Scope 3 emissions reporting and for businesses responding to tender requirements that include supply chain sustainability criteria.
The study found that food consumption drives 83% of losses. Within that total, animal-sourced foods drive 59% of carbon loss and 71% of biodiversity loss. Bovine meat and milk alone account for 29% of carbon loss and 41% of biodiversity loss. These figures provide specific benchmarks for businesses assessing the environmental impact of their procurement decisions.
Ruminant livestock systems drive disproportionate environmental impacts
The data on beef and milk is particularly striking. Because these two products contribute disproportionately to both carbon and biodiversity losses, reducing impacts from ruminant livestock systems could be especially important for businesses seeking to lower their environmental footprint. This finding aligns with broader research showing that food systems are a major driver of biodiversity loss and emissions.
For UK manufacturers, retailers, and hospitality businesses, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Reducing reliance on beef and milk in supply chains, or sourcing from lower-impact production systems, could deliver measurable reductions in both carbon and biodiversity impact. However, these changes require careful supplier engagement and may involve shifts in product formulation or menu planning.
The study strengthens the case that climate and biodiversity policy need to be designed together, not separately. The authors argue that because the same land areas and products often drive both problems, the most effective responses will likely combine supply-side measures such as land-use change and production shifts with demand-side measures such as dietary change. Consequently, businesses addressing environmental impact through procurement should consider both production methods and consumption patterns.
Earlier work from organizations such as Chatham House and WWF has already identified food systems as a leading cause of deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity loss. The new study is significant because it appears to be the first to map carbon storage loss and biodiversity loss simultaneously at global scale and connect them to specific food products and trade flows. This level of detail makes it easier for businesses to identify where their supply chains intersect with high-impact regions and products.
Implications for Scope 3 reporting and procurement decisions
Policies aimed only at carbon may miss major biodiversity impacts, and vice versa. For businesses, this means that carbon reporting compliance alone may not capture the full environmental footprint of agricultural supply chains. Companies working towards net-zero targets should consider biodiversity alongside carbon when assessing supplier performance and making procurement decisions.
The concentration of losses suggests that targeting a relatively small share of agricultural land could deliver outsized gains. Therefore, businesses with significant agricultural supply chains may find that focusing on high-impact regions and products offers a more efficient route to reducing environmental harm than attempting to address impacts uniformly across all suppliers.
UK businesses face increasing pressure to demonstrate supply chain sustainability. Public sector suppliers must address carbon reduction through PPN 06/21, while private sector companies face growing investor and customer expectations around environmental performance. Understanding which agricultural products and regions drive the most significant environmental losses helps businesses prioritize where to focus their efforts.
For example, a food manufacturer sourcing beef from Brazil faces very different environmental risks than one sourcing chicken from the UK. Similarly, a retailer sourcing dairy products from Southeast Asia will have a different biodiversity impact than one sourcing from European suppliers. The study's geographic and product-level detail makes these distinctions clearer.
Moreover, the research highlights the role of international trade in shifting environmental impacts between countries. China's position as the largest net importer of both carbon and biodiversity losses illustrates how consumption in one country drives environmental harm in another. UK businesses exporting to China or other major importers should consider how their products contribute to these trade flows and what that means for their environmental footprint.
Supply chain transparency becomes more important for risk management
The study's findings underscore the importance of supply chain transparency. Businesses that lack detailed information about where their agricultural inputs originate may struggle to assess their true environmental impact. Tracing products back through international supply chains to specific regions and production systems requires robust data collection and supplier engagement.
For businesses working on carbon reduction programs, the study suggests that focusing on animal-sourced foods, particularly beef and milk, offers the greatest potential for impact reduction. However, this may require significant changes to product formulation, supplier relationships, or customer offerings. Businesses should weigh the environmental benefits against commercial considerations such as cost, availability, and customer preferences.
The research also has implications for businesses developing nature-positive strategies. Because agricultural expansion and intensification drive both carbon and biodiversity losses, reducing pressure on high-impact regions can protect both carbon stocks and ecosystems. Businesses investing in nature-based solutions or seeking to align with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework should consider how their agricultural supply chains affect these dual objectives.
Additionally, the study's focus on consumption-driven impacts highlights the potential role of demand-side measures. Businesses can influence consumption patterns through product design, marketing, and customer education. For example, reducing portion sizes of meat products, promoting plant-based alternatives, or clearly labeling the environmental footprint of different menu options could all contribute to lower overall impacts.
Key findings for UK businesses
- Two-thirds of agricultural carbon and biodiversity loss occurs on one-third of agricultural area, suggesting that targeted interventions on high-impact land could deliver significant environmental gains.
- Animal-sourced foods drive 59% of carbon loss and 71% of biodiversity loss, with beef and milk accounting for 29% and 41% of these impacts respectively.
- Brazil is the largest net exporter of carbon and biodiversity losses, while China is the largest net importer, highlighting the role of international trade in shifting environmental impacts.
- Major hotspots include Mexico and Central America, Brazil, West Africa, India, China, and Southeast Asia, where agriculture is either highly intensive or located in high-value ecosystems.
- Food consumption drives 83% of losses, emphasizing the importance of demand-side measures alongside production improvements.
- The highest-loss regions for carbon and biodiversity are often co-located, supporting integrated approaches to climate and nature policy.
Practical considerations for businesses addressing agricultural impacts
Businesses reviewing their agricultural supply chains should start by mapping where their products originate. Understanding the geographic distribution of suppliers allows companies to identify which supply chains intersect with the high-impact regions identified in the study. This mapping exercise forms the foundation for prioritizing reduction efforts and engaging suppliers on environmental performance.
Next, businesses should assess the product mix within their supply chains. The study's findings on beef and milk suggest that companies with significant exposure to ruminant livestock products face the highest environmental risks. Therefore, exploring alternatives such as plant-based ingredients, lower-impact animal proteins, or sourcing from production systems with better environmental performance could reduce overall footprint.
Supplier engagement is crucial. Many environmental impacts in agricultural supply chains occur at farm level, where businesses have limited direct control. Consequently, companies need to work with suppliers to understand current practices, identify improvement opportunities, and support transitions to lower-impact production methods. This may involve technical assistance, financial support, or longer-term purchasing commitments that make investment in sustainability economically viable for suppliers.
Businesses should also consider how their procurement decisions align with broader environmental goals. For companies committed to net-zero targets or nature-positive strategies, agricultural supply chains often represent a significant portion of total environmental impact. Sustainable procurement practices that address both carbon and biodiversity can contribute substantially to meeting these commitments.
Furthermore, the study's emphasis on consumption-driven impacts suggests that businesses have a role in influencing customer behavior. Providing clear information about the environmental footprint of different products, offering lower-impact alternatives, and designing products that make sustainable choices easier can all contribute to reducing demand for high-impact foods. However, these approaches require careful communication to avoid alienating customers or appearing to shift responsibility from producers to consumers.
The research also highlights the limitations of focusing solely on carbon. Businesses that measure and report only greenhouse gas emissions may miss significant biodiversity impacts in their supply chains. Developing metrics and reporting frameworks that capture both carbon and biodiversity losses provides a more complete picture of environmental performance and helps identify trade-offs or synergies between different environmental objectives.
Links between trade flows and environmental responsibility
The study's analysis of trade flows reveals how consumption in importing countries drives environmental impacts in exporting countries. For UK businesses, this means that purchasing decisions create environmental consequences in regions far from their operations. Understanding these connections is important for businesses seeking to take responsibility for their full environmental footprint, not just direct emissions or impacts within their immediate control.
This has particular relevance for Scope 3 emissions reporting, which requires businesses to account for indirect emissions throughout their value chain. Agricultural products imported from high-impact regions will typically carry higher Scope 3 emissions than domestically produced or lower-impact alternatives. Businesses can use the study's findings to inform supplier selection and prioritize engagement with suppliers in high-impact regions.
The concentration of environmental impacts also creates opportunities for collaborative action. Because a relatively small share of agricultural land drives the majority of losses, industry-wide initiatives focused on these hotspots could deliver significant collective benefits. Trade associations, industry groups, or multi-stakeholder initiatives could coordinate efforts to address environmental impacts in priority regions and product categories.
However, businesses should be mindful of the complexity involved in shifting agricultural supply chains. Farms and suppliers in high-impact regions often face economic, social, and technical constraints that limit their ability to change practices quickly. Therefore, supporting suppliers through transitions rather than simply switching to alternative sources may be both more effective and more equitable. This requires long-term commitment and investment from purchasing companies.
Where to find further information
The study was published in Nature Food and provides detailed methodology and data on carbon and biodiversity mapping across global agricultural systems. Businesses seeking to understand the specific environmental footprint of their supply chains may find the study's product and region-level data useful for benchmarking and target setting.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero provides guidance on carbon reporting and net-zero commitments for UK businesses. The department's resources include information on measuring Scope 3 emissions and developing credible reduction plans.
For businesses working on biodiversity and nature-positive strategies, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs offers guidance on environmental impact assessment and biodiversity net gain requirements. These resources can help businesses understand regulatory expectations and align their strategies with UK environmental policy.
Earlier research from Chatham House on food systems and biodiversity loss provides additional context on the links between agricultural production, consumption patterns, and environmental impacts. The WWF UK has also published extensive research on food systems, deforestation, and biodiversity loss that complements the findings of this new study.
Businesses seeking practical support with carbon reporting, supply chain assessment, or net-zero planning can access specialist advice through sustainability consultancy services that help translate research findings into operational decisions and compliance requirements.