- Email: [email protected]
Global supply chain of arable land use: Production-based and consumption-based trade imbalance
Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Global supply chain of arable land use: Production-based and consumption-based trade imbalance G.Q. Chen a,b,∗ , M.Y. Han a,b,∗ a b
College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, PR China NAAM Group, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 13 June 2015 Received in revised form 14 July 2015 Accepted 20 July 2015 Keywords: Global supply chain Input-output analysis Arable land use Food supply Trade imbalance
a b s t r a c t Closely related to food supply, arable land use has been extensively studied, especially regarding booming global trade activities. However, the analysis on trade patterns of arable land use, particularly in terms of intermediate use and final demand, is still lacking. To shed light on the complex arable land use relationships among economies, the global supply chain of arable land use is intensively explored in the present work by a systems multi-regional input-output analysis for the year of 2010, with focus on the trade patterns from the perspective of production and consumption. Global arable land use embodied in international trade is estimated near one third the global arable land use, and that embodied in intermediate use is almost twice that embodied in final demand. Arable land use trade patterns are noted in terms of production-based imports/exports and consumption-based imports/exports. Most notably, Mainland China is shown as the leading production-dominated importer. With regard to other large economies, Canada is found as a production-oriented exporter, in contrast to Australia as a consumption-oriented exporter. Japan is identified as a production-oriented importer, while the United States is a consumptionoriented importer. As heavy trade imbalance is revealed prevailing not only between countries and regions but also between intermediate products and final goods, the study to explore global supply chains of arable land use can provide essential policy making implications for security and sustainability in arable land use and food supply on both global and regional scales. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Food supply is always a global focus. Since a surge in international cereal prices over 2007 and 2008, over 130 million people were affected, and 75 million additional people became malnourished (Headey, 2011). In global food supply chains, a significant role has been played by huge arable land use hidden in booming commodity trade (Qiang et al., 2013; Tilman et al., 2011). A country consumes massive amounts of goods and services from both domestic and global markets, and thus imposes pressure not only on its domestic arable land resources, but also upon other countries and regions’ (Verhoeve et al., 2015; Weinzettel et al., 2013). In context of the inter-connected global economy that features an intensive correlated supply chain (Davis and Caldeira, 2010), the
∗ Corresponding authors at: College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, PR China. Tel.: +86 10 62767167; Fax: +86 10 62754280. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G.Q. Chen), [email protected] (M.Y. Han). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.023 0264-8377/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
analysis on global supply chains of arable land use gains its essential significance (Garrett et al., 2013a,b). Developed and refined by Leontief (1986), input–output analysis (IOA) method played an important role in guiding macroeconomic policies (Lenzen et al., 2013a; Peters and Hertwich, 2008). By interconnecting resource flows and environmental impacts to categories of both intermediate use and final demand through inter-industrial connections, IOA method is well-established to analyze ecological elements and environmental resources in the globalized economic system (Chen and Chen, 2011a,b). This method presents a swift extension to land use accounting (Hubacek and Sun, 2001; Lenzen et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2006). Subsequently, land use accounting on the global, national, and urban scales have been a recent concern (Guo et al., 2014; Lenzen et al., 2007; Steen-Olsen et al., 2012; Wiedmann et al., 2007). Among them the land use transferring throughout the world has arrested extensive attention, in which the comprehensive analyses on global land displacement and discussions on global land concerns were fully elaborated (Weinzettel et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2013). In addition to the above up–down analyses, physical accounting as a kind of process analysis method made a great contribution to land use
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
119
Table 1 Multi-regional input–output table for global economy.
Intermediate use
Output Region 1
Region 1
Input
Sector 1
Sector
n
…
Final demand Region m
Sector 1
Sector
Region m
Region 1
n
Sector 1
Sector
n
Region m
zijrs
f iirs
Sector 1
Sector
n
Resources use
uir
accounting as well on basis of international and regional food trade data (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2002; Kastner and Nonhebel, 2010; Kastner et al., 2011, 2012). Above mentioned studies are considered valuable for land use assessment. However, the analysis on trade patterns of arable land use, particularly in terms of intermediate use and final demand, is still lacking. Compared to trade in final goods and services, trade of intermediates is more sensitive to trade costs and inert to bilateral market size (Miroudot et al., 2009). Besides, trade flows somewhat tend to be dominated by intermediate products instead of final goods (Miroudot et al., 2009). Taking up nearly two thirds the global trade volume, intermediate trade deserves certain attention (Johnson and Noguera, 2011). At the moment, countries such as the United States, Japan, Russia, and the European Union are facing an economic downturn. For Mainland China, the economy has stepped into the “new normal” age with a growth rate at around 7%. In the same period, some emerging economies are flourishing. Tremendous changes have taken place, and an urgent need is required to explore the global supply chains of arable land use. In this context, the global supply chain of arable land use is intensively explored in the present work by means of a systems multi-regional input–output analysis. With focus on the trade patterns from the perspective of production and consumption, relationships of arable land use between economies are clearly elaborated with descriptive statistics and systematic analysis. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 articulates the method employed in this study, Section 3 summarizes the detailed results, Section 4 discusses the trade patterns in different economies, and in the final section the concluding remarks are drawn.
resources and emissions profiles associated with economic flows. Extended from the economic input–output table, the ecological multi-regional input-output table is built profiling both monetary and ecological flows of the target system, with m regions each involving n sectors as presented in Table 1. For the global economy concerned, the systems conservation for resource use of Sector i in Region r requires: uri +
n m
sj zjisr = ri xir
(1)
s=1 j=1
where uri represents direct resources input of Sector i in Region r, sj
represents embodied intensity of Sector j in Region s, zjisr represents output from Sector j in Region s for intermediate input to Sector i in Region r, xir represents gross output of Sector i in Region r given as: xir =
n m
m
zijrs +
s=1 j=1
fiirs
(2)
s=1
where fiirs represents output from Sector i in Region r for final demand of Sector i in Region s. Subsequently, the conservative matric form can be expressed as: U + EZ = E Xˆ
(3)
in which, U = matrix Xˆ = [xijrs ]
[uri ]1×mn , mn×mn
E=
[sj ] , 1×mn
Z=
[zjisr ] , mn×mn
diagonal
, where r, s ∈ (1, 2, . . ., m), i, j ∈ (1, 2, . . ., n),
xijrs = xir when (i = j) ∩ (r = s) and xijrs = 0 when (i = / j) ∪ (r = / s), and in which diagonal matrix Fˆ = [fijrs ]
mn×mn
, where r, s ∈ (1, 2, . . ., m),
i, j ∈ (1, 2, . . ., n), fijrs = fir when (i = j) ∩ (r = s) and fijrs = 0 when
2. Method and materials To quantify and analyze the embodiment of resources and emissions in different economic activities, input–output tables, in particular multi-region input–output tables, are well-employed for exploring economic interdependency of different economies and frequently applied to assess human induced energy and environmental issues, such as energy consumption (Chen and Chen, 2013a), carbon emissions (Chen et al., 2013; Peters and Hertwich, 2008), water use (Chen and Chen, 2013b; Han et al., 2014, 2015; Lenzen et al., 2013a), and land displacement (Weinzettel et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2013). This method integrates ecological endowments and environmental emissions with economic network to reveal the
(i = / j) ∪ (r = / s). Therefore, with properly given direct inputs matrix U, intermeˆ the embodied diate inputs matrix Z, and total outputs matrix X, intensity matrix can be obtained as:
E = U Xˆ − Z
−1
(4)
In this way, the embodied intensity based on the conservation law is obtained equally applicable to both intermediate use and final demand, to support systems accounting for all the intersectoral and inter-regional supply chains. This is different to the case with the conventional environmentally-extended IOA, where direct input of environmental resources for each sector is assigned to the virtual use of environmental resources of final demand by
120
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 1. Arable land use of 189 economies (black bar represents direct arable land use, white bar represents production-based arable land use, and grey bar represents consumption-based arable land use).
that sector, and correspondingly the virtual intensity is only defined for the final demand, irrelevant to the intermediates. Specific to trade, production-based resources imports and exports (TEIM and TEEX), respectively defined as intermediate resources imports and exports for domestic production, can be obtained as: r
TEIM =
n
TEIMir
=
n m n
TEEX =
(5)
/ r) j=1 i=1 s=1(s =
i=1
r
(sj zjisr )
n
TEEXir
=
n m n
(6)
Correspondingly, consumption-based resources imports and exports (FEIM and FEEX), respectively defined as final resources imports and exports for domestic demand, can be obtained as: FEIM r =
n
FEIMir =
m n
FEEX r =
n
(si fiisr )
(7)
(ri fiirs )
(8)
/ r) i=1 s=1(s =
i=1
FEEXir =
m n
i=1
TNEIM r = TEIM r − TEEX r
(11)
FNEIM r = FEIM r − FEEX r
(12)
Thus, total net resources imports (NEIM) can be obtained as: NEIM r = TNEIM r +FNEIM r
(ri zijrs )
/ r) j=1 i=1 s=1(s =
i=1
Furthermore, net resources trade (imports here) embodied in intermediate use (TNEIM) and final demand (FNEIM) can be obtained as:
/ r) i=1 s=1(s =
Thus, total resources embodied in imports and exports (EIM and EEX) can be obtained as: EIM r = TEIM r + FEIM r
(9)
EEX r = TEEX r + FEEX r
(10)
(13)
With given matrices, production-based resources use, defined as total resources for domestic production, can be obtained as: TEF r = U r + TNEIM r
(14)
Correspondingly, consumption-based resources use, defined as total resources for domestic demand, can be obtained as: FEF r = E Fˆ r + FNEIM r
(15)
With the aid of embodiment analysis, the arable land use embodied in global trade is investigated by resorting to data from Euro database (Lenzen et al., 2012, 2013b) and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations database (FAO, 2010). The detailed data in 2010 are applied in this study with details presented in Appendix Table A.1. For now, Eora database is the most detailed multi-regional input–output database covering 189 individual economies with 26-sector harmonized classification. As for arable land use data, the FAO (2010) database is applied to analyze mankind requirements for production and consumption.
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
121
Fig. 2. Arable land use trade connections within top 17 trading economies and 3 units. The thickness of the connecting lines in (a) respects each economy’s gross exporting volume of arable land use, and in (b) respects each economy’s net exporting volume of arable land use. The connecting lines’ colors correspond to the exporting regions. The circle in (a) is scaled according to the global gross trade volume of arable land use, and in (b) is scaled according to the global net trade volume of arable land use. Note the large difference between global gross trade volume (471.94 million ha) and global net trade volume (386.51 million ha). These figures are created based on scripting languages and details refer to Krzywinski et al. (2009).
3. Results
3.2. Global arable land use trade connections
An overview on global arable land use profiles with focus on that embodied in intermediate use and final demand is presented below.
The gross and net trade volumes of arable land use in 189 economies are quantified for analysis. The United States is the world’s leading gross exporter and importer of arable land use, followed by Germany and Mainland China. Overall, the typical net arable land use importer, Japan, imports a huge amount of arable land use that reaches 32.33 million ha, 7 times its direct arable land use. The situation in Singapore is more obvious, in which about 7500 times the direct arable land use are imported to meet its demand. As an economy with huge arable land use, the United States imports take up almost 1/3 its direct arable land use. As for the European Union, the arable land use imports almost equal to its direct arable land use. The paired relationships within top 17 trading economies and 3 unions are illustrated in Fig. 2, in which 27 economies in the European Union, all the African economies, and the remaining economies are respectively recognized as distinct unions. It is worth noting that some developing countries, such as India, Myanmar and economies in Africa, export considerable arable land use, while some developed countries such as the United States, Japan, and South Korea are identified to be net arable land use receivers. Considering all the African economies as a union, it is the world’s leading supplier for arable land use (net arable land use exports of 77.12 million ha), in contrast to the European Union as a leading receiver (net arable land use imports of 67.54 million ha). As the world’s trading centers, the United States and the European Union together account for about 40% of global arable land use trade volume, while the emerging economies including Mainland China, India and African economies have already occupied more than 20%.
3.1. Direct, Production-based and Consumption-based arable land use Three types of arable land use in terms of direct arable land use, production-based arable land use, and consumption-based arable land use are quantified and presented in Fig. 1, with details presented in Appendix Table A.2. From Fig. 1, the top 5 economies are noticed as the United States, India, Russia, Mainland China, and Brazil. The United States ranks the first with 163.87 million hectares (ha) of production-based arable land use and 176.84 million ha of consumption-based arable land use, while India occupies the leading position with 157.01 million ha of direct arable land use. As for Mainland China, the direct arable land use, production-based arable land use, and consumption-based arable land use are respectively quantified as 107.22 million, 123.03 million, and 121.84 million ha, in which the production-based arable land use is the largest one. Given further assessment on the three types of arable land use, the production-based arable land use occupies the leading position in economies such as India and Mainland China, while the consumption-based arable land use is outstanding in economies such as the United States and Russia. Among all the economies, the largest gap between production-based and consumption-based arable land use is noted in Japan with an amount of 17.35 million ha, followed by Australia with 14.47 million ha and Hong Kong, China with 13.08 million ha.
122
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 3. Arable land use trade in 189 economies (black part of each bar represents intermediate arable land use imports and exports, and white part represents final arable land use imports and exports).
3.3. Production-based & Consumption-based arable land use trade Arable land use trade embodied in intermediate use and final demand, respectively deemed as intermediate and final arable land use, are further quantified and presented in Fig. 3, with details presented in Appendix Table A.3 and A.4. With the separate assessment of arable land use trade, different kinds of trade patterns are noted. Even though Canada and Australia are both large arable land use exporters, Canada is more inclined to export intermediate arable land use while Australia tends to export final arable land use. With regards to imports, economies such as Japan prefer intermediate arable land use, while economies such as the United States receive more final arable land use. The ratios between intermediate and final arable land use trade of 189 economies are presented in Fig. 4. For different economies, different shares of trade volumes of intermediate and final arable land use would further reflect their reserves and utilization of arable land resources. The largest ratios are noticed in Belarus, for which the ratios between intermediate and final arable land use trade volumes almost reach 100. Kuwait, Israel, and Moldova are also characterized by extreme high ratios between intermediate and final arable land use trade volumes. 3.4. Production-based & Consumption-based arable land use trade connections The intermediate and final arable land use trade relationships within top 17 trading economies and 3 distinct unions are illustrated in Fig. 5. With 11.87 million ha of intermediate arable land use exports, Canada serves much for the United States. African
economies are also recognized as large intermediate arable land use importers for the United States with a total amount of 4.59 million ha. Correspondingly, Mexico is a final arable land use exporter for the United States with an amount of 2.42 million ha. As an impressive arable land use supply union, Africa exports massive intermediate arable land use to European Union and Japan, 33.06 million and 7.55 million ha respectively. Another large arable land use supplier, India, exports arable land use to the European Union with 4.05 million ha of intermediate arable land use and 2.68 million ha of final arable land use. Considering only the intermediate arable land use trade, the volume of African economies reaches 76.81 million ha, accounting for more than 12% of the total trade volume of intermediate arable land use. From this point, developing and emerging economies are to some extent occupying increasingly significant positions than the traditional powers in global arable land use connections.
3.5. Major arable land use trading economies By separating intermediate and final arable land use, Fig. 6 lists the top 20 largest gross and net trading economies. The United States is the world’s leading gross exporter and importer of arable land use (52.04 million and 37.61 million ha, respectively), followed by Germany with 40.61 million ha of gross imports and 22.60 million ha of gross exports. Japan holds the leading place as the largest receiver with 29.99 million ha of net arable land use imports. In contrast, Australia is the leading supplier with 19.03 million ha of net arable land use exports. Based on the separate trade volumes, economies such as Mainland China, Belgium, Brazil, and Mexico are found with dual roles
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
123
Fig. 4. Arable land use trade ratios in 189 economies (black part represents ratios between intermediate and final arable land use exports, and white part represents ratios between final and intermediate arable land use imports).
as net intermediate arable land use receivers and final suppliers. 4. Analysis To conduct further assessment of global arable land use, different arable land use trade patterns and distinctive trading economies are discussed below. 4.1. Production-oriented & Consumption-oriented trade patterns When arable land use trade for intermediate use and final demand is clearly separated and quantified, the trade patterns of arable land use in different economies are clearly distinguished. Based on different ratios of arable land use embodied in intermediate use and final demand, trade patterns of all the 189 economies are obtained and presented in Fig. 7, in which the size of spheres represents each economy’s gross trading volume. Generally, arable land use trade embodied in intermediate use is almost twice that embodied in final demand. Thus, by taking global general trade pattern into consideration, the normalized arable land use trade patterns are presented in Fig. 7(b), with parting lines dividing economies into four kinds of trade patterns in terms of productionbased imports/exports and consumption-based imports/exports. In Fig. 7(b), economies close to the vertical axis tend to be production-oriented, while these close to the horizontal axis tend to be consumption-oriented. Canada is found as a net productionoriented exporter, in contrast to Australia as a net consumptionoriented exporter. Japan is identified as a net production-oriented importer, while the United States is a net consumption-oriented importer. Specific to the economies close to the coordinate axes, Belarus is found as a net production-dominated exporter, in con-
trast to Thailand as a net consumption-dominated exporter. Israel is a net production-dominated importer, while Russia is a net consumption-dominated importer. More remarkable are the few economies noticed in the fourth quadrant: Mainland China is the most prominent net production-dominated importer, followed by Netherlands and Belgium. Overall, many economies particularly some emerging economies, are highly dependent on intermediate exports. This situation reflects the relatively weak domestic basic industrial structure in those economies, and furthermore exacerbates a widening deficit of resources. 4.2. Distinctive trading economies Based on the global arable land use connections, several economies are noteworthy because of their different trade patterns between intermediate and final arable land use. Economies such as Mainland China, Netherlands, Belgium, Brazil, and Turkey are net intermediate arable land use receivers and final suppliers, while economies such as Egypt, Algeria, and Paraguay are net intermediate suppliers and final receivers. Fig. 8 presents economies with different trade patterns with details presented in Appendix Table A.5. As the most predominant, Mainland China imports 15.81 million ha of arable land use for intermediate production, meanwhile exporting 0.60 million ha for others’ demand. With one-fifth of the world’s population and only one-twentieth of world’s arable land, China is always plagued by arable land issues. For decades, China has experienced large-scale expansion of built-up land (i.e., land used for building structures and infrastructure) and a rapid loss of arable land, especially in metropolises (Liu et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2005). Even though Mainland China has set the “red line” of 120
124
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 5. Intermediate and final arable land use trade connections within top 17 trading economies and 3 units. The thickness of the connecting lines in (a) and (b) respects each economy’s gross exporting volume of arable land use, and in (c) and (d) respects each economy’s net exporting volume of arable land use. The connecting lines’ colors correspond to the exporting regions. The circle in (a) is scaled according to the global gross intermediate trade volume of arable land use, in (b) is scaled according to the global gross final trade volume of arable land use, in (c) is scaled according to the global net intermediate trade volume of arable land use, and in (d) is scaled according to the global net final trade volume of arable land use. Note the large difference among global gross intermediate trade volume (310.24 million ha), global gross final trade volume (161.71 million ha), global net intermediate trade volume (274.30 million ha), and global net final trade volume (125.06 million ha).
million ha for arable land conservation (The State Department of the People’s Republic of China, 2006), loss of such land was still virtually inevitable over the past years (Song, 2014). Most seriously, the land management policies were released mainly referring to direct land use assessment, which makes the situation even worse (Chen and Han, 2015; Long, 2014). As mentioned above, Mainland China’s trade patterns of arable land use for intermediate use and final demand are totally different, with details presented in Fig. 9. Overall, Myanmar, Russia, Australia
and several African economies are noted as Mainland China’s main suppliers of arable land use. In the meantime, Mainland China exports arable land use to some nearby economies such as Japan and South Korea. Among all the trading flows in and out of Mainland China, it is witnessed that flows exported to Mainland China mainly come from intermediate arable land use especially from Myanmar, Russia, Australia, and the African economies, which occupies almost a half share of the total imports. As for final demand,
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 6. Arable land use trade in top 20 trading economies.
125
126
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 7. Arable land use trade patterns (unit: million ha). The size of the spheres respects each economy’s gross trading volume, with the trade volume of the United States as 89.66 million ha for reference.
Fig. 8. Top 12 trading economies with different arable land use trade patterns.
Mainland China mainly imports from Australia, followed by Myanmar and Russia. Meanwhile, Mainland China exports final arable land use to Japan, the European Union, and the United States with areas of 1.57 million, 1.64 million, and 2.15 million ha,
respectively. Thus, in view of the final demand trade, Mainland China is a net exporter with 0.60 million ha of arable land use exports. Given the arable land “red line” set in China, the amount of arable land use exports has essential implications
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
127
Fig. 9. Mainland China’s arable land use connections embodied in (a) final demand and (b) intermediate use (unit: 1,000 ha).
for current policies that are rested on direct land use assessment.
4.3. Discussion on economies Fig. 10 displays the largest net arable land use trade flows between economies on the globe. From Fig. 10(a), the United States is a net importer of both intermediate and final arable land use with areas of 7.94 million and 6.48 million ha, respectively. The intermediate arable land use from Canada to the United States is
predominant, which is much higher than the final one embodied in trade. Even though the United States is a net importer of both intermediate and final arable land use, it still exports massive amounts of arable land use for Japan, South Korean, and Hong Kong, China. As the largest net exporter of the United States, Japan imports 4.87 million ha of arable land use from the United States. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to the increasing subsidies to agriculture industry that are supported by the American institute of agricultural and trade policies in the past 20 years (The United States Department of Agriculture, 2015), which has precip-
128
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 10. Global arable land use connections in (a) intermediate useand (b) final demand (unit: 100,000 ha).
itated the United States’ scale cultivation and industrialization of agriculture industry and caused huge impacts on other economies’ agriculture-related industry. Compared to the United States, India is a typical large arable land use exporter with a net exporting volume reaching 8.36 million ha. For now, agrarian developing countries such as India still maintain high tariffs and low quotas to protect domestic agricul-
ture industry (Perali et al., 2012). However India is still a large arable land use exporter from not only the intermediate arable land use connections but also the final ones. Arable land use exports from India to the European Union (6.73 million ha) are about 9 times the imports in opposite direction to the counterparts. The volume from India to the United States is even 16 times the imports in opposite direction.
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
For now, global food crisis is aggravated by global climate change, population growth, arable land shrinking, and bioenergy development (Kongsager and Reenberg, 2012; Lopes et al., 2015). Besides, support policies are implemented to protect domestic agriculture industry (The United States Department of Agriculture, 2015). Associated with the expanding globalization, changes in each economy will express huge impacts to the other economies on the globe (Antonelli et al., 2015). As agriculture related industry is the most protected in both developing and developed countries, trade liberalization encountered a dilemma especially in the period of global food crisis. However, as single resource constraints are not sufficiently comprehensive for the conservation of local resources, it is significant for every individual economy to deeply understand the development trend of globalization and adjust own trade structure in correspondence with self-advantage.
5. Concluding remarks In consideration of the diversity and complexity of global arable land use connections, this study provides insight into productionbased and consumption-based arable land uses and trade patterns of 189 economies on basis of a systems multi-regional input-output analysis. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to analyze global arable land use with a distinction between intermediate use and final demand, and systematically elaborate global arable land use issues from the perspective of production and consumption. In the current context of unprecedented globalization, global flows are playing an ever-larger role in connecting nations, regions, and individuals. Overall, arable land use embodied in international trade has already reached one third the global arable land use, and the arable land use trade embodied in intermediate use is almost twice that in final demand. With the separation of arable land use trade embodied in intermediate use and final demand, four kinds of arable land use trade patterns are identified in terms of productionbased imports/exports and consumption-based imports/exports. Most notably, Mainland China is shown typically as a productiondominated arable land use importer. With regard to other large economies, Canada is deemed as a production-oriented exporter, in contrast to Australia as a typical consumption-oriented exporter. Japan is identified as a production-oriented importer, while the United States is a consumption-oriented importer. As agriculture related industry is the most protected in almost all the countries and regions, an in-depth understanding of global supply chains of arable land use is of great significance. Closely related to the booming global economy, the land occupation type is transforming from original “colonial” land to inter-national land use trade imbalance. For each economy, adjusting trade structure in correspondence with self-advantage and targeting self-localization in global systems are substantial to follow the rules hidden in global trade activities. As heavy trade imbalance is revealed prevailing not only between countries and regions but also between intermediate products and final goods, different arable land use trade patterns should be further investigated to ease issues in terms of food security and land deficits in the context of increasingly high level of inter-connectivity and complicacy of global trade activities.
Acknowledgement This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 11272012).
129
Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015. 07.023 References Antonelli, M., Siciliano, G., Turvani, M.E., Rulli, M.C., 2015. Global investments in agricultural land and the role of the EU: drivers, scope and potential impacts. Land Use Policy 47, 98–111. Chen, G.Q., Han, M.Y., 2015. Virtual land use change in China 2002–2010: internal transition and trade imbalance. Land Use Policy 47, 55–65. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., 2011a. An overview of energy consumption of the globalized world economy. Energy Policy 39, 5920–5928. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., 2011b. Embodied carbon dioxide emission at supra-national scale: a coalition analysis for G7, BRIC, and the rest of the world. Energy Policy 39, 2899–2909. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., 2007. Demand-driven energy requirement of world economy 2007: a multi-region input–output network simulation. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 18, 1757–1774. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., 2013b. Virtual water accounting for the globalized world economy: national water footprint and international virtual water trade. Ecol. Indic. 28, 142–149. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., Chen, B., 2013. Embodied carbon dioxide emission by the globalized economy: a systems ecological input-output simulation. J. Environ. Inf. 21 (1), 35–44. Davis, S.J., Caldeira, K., 2010. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 5687–5692. FAO, 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www. fao.org/home/en/ Garrett, R.D., Lambin, E.F., Naylor, R.L., 2013a. Land institutions and supply chain configurations as determinants of soybean planted area and yields in Brazil. Land Use Policy 31, 385–396. Garrett, R.D., Lambin, E.F., Naylor, R.L., 2013b. The new economic geography of land use change: Supply chain configurations and land use in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 34, 265–275. Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Nonhebel, S., Ivens, W.P.M.F., 2002. A method to determine land requirements relating to food consumption patterns. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 90, 47–58. Guo, S., Shen, G.Q., Chen, Z.M., Yu, R., 2014. 2014. Embodied cultivated land use in China 1987–2007. Ecol. Indic. 47, 198–209. Han, M.Y., Chen, G.Q., Mustafa, M.T., Hayat, T., Shao, L., Li, J.S., Xia, X.H., Ji, X., 2015. Embodied water for urban economy: a three-scale input-output analysis for Beijing 2010. Ecol. Model., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.05.024 Han, M.Y., Guo, S., Chen, H., Ji, X., Li, J.S., 2014. Local-scale systems input–output analysis of embodied water for the Beijing economy in 2007. Front. Earth Sci. 8, 414–426. Headey, D., 2011. Rethinking the global food crisis: the role of trade shocks. Food Policy 36, 136–146. Hubacek, K., Sun, L., 2001. A scenario analysis of China’s land use and land cover change: incorporating biophysical information into input?output modeling. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dynam. 12, 367–397. Johnson, R.C., Noguera, G., 2011. Accounting for intermediates: production sharing and trade in value added. http://www.freit.org/WorkingPapers/Papers/ TradePatterns/FREIT063pdf Kastner, T., Ibarrola Rivas, M.J., Koch, W., Nonhebel, S., 2012. Global changes in diets and the consequences for land requirements for food. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 6868–6872. Kastner, T., Kastner, M., Nonhebel, S., 2011. Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1032–1040. Kastner, T., Nonhebel, S., 2010. Changes in land requirements for food in the Philippines: a historical analysis. Land Use Policy 27. Kongsager, R., Reenberg, A., 2012. Contemporary land-use transitions: the global oil palm expansion. In: GLP Report No. 4. GLP-IPO, Copenhagen. Krzywinski, M., Schein, J., Birol, I., Connors, J., Gascoyne, R., Horsman, D., Jones, S.J., Marra, M.A., 2009. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome. Res. 19, 1639–1645. Lenzen, M., Borgstrom Hansson, C., Bond, S., 2007. On the bioproductivity and land-disturbance metrics of the ecological footprint. Ecol. Econ. 61, 6–10. Lenzen, M., Kanemoto, K., Moran, D., Geschke, A., 2012. Mapping the structure of the world economy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 8374–8381. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Bhaduri, A., Kanemoto, K., Bekchanov, M., Geschke, A., Foran, B., 2013a. International trade of scarce water. Ecol. Econ. 94, 78–85. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Geschke, A., 2013b. Building eora: a global multi-regional input-output database at high country and sector resolution. Econ. Syst. Res. 25, 20–49. Lenzen, M., Murray, S.A., Korte, B., Dey, C.J., 2003. Environmental impact assessment including indirect effects: a case study using input–output analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23, 263–282. Leontief, W., 1986. Input–output Economics. Oxford University Press, New York. Liu, Y., Fang, F., Li, Y., 2014. Key issues of land use in China and implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 40, 6–12.
130
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Long, H., 2014. Land use policy in China: introduction. Land use policy 40, 1–5. Lopes, L.F.G., dos Santos Bento, J.M.R., Arede Correia Cristovão, A.F., Baptista, F.O., 2015. Exploring the effect of land use on ecosystem services: The distributive issues. Land Use Policy 45, 141–149. Miroudot, S., Lanz, R., Ragoussis, A., 2009. Trade in intermediate goods and services. http://www.oecd.org/trade Perali, F., Pieroni, L., Standardi, G., 2012. World tariff liberalization in agriculture: an assessment using a global CGE trade model for EU15. J. Policy Model. 34, 155–180. Peters, G.P., Hertwich, E.G., 2008. CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 1401–1407. Qiang, W.L., Liu, A.M., Cheng, S.K., Kastner, T., Xie, G.D., 2013. Agricultural trade and virtual land use: the case of China’s crop trade. Land Use Policy 33, 141–150. Song, W., 2014. Decoupling cultivated land loss by construction occupation from economic growth in Beijing. Habitat Int. 43, 198–205. Steen-Olsen, K., Weinzettel, J., Cranston, G., Ercin, A.E., Hertwich, E.G., 2012. Carbon, land, and water footpriont accounts for the European Union: consumption, production, and displacements through international trade. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 10883–10891. Tan, M., Li, X., Xie, H., Lu, C., 2005. Urban land expansion and arable land loss in China—a case study of Beijing—Tianjin—Hebei region. Land Use Policy 22, 187–196.
The State Department of the People’s Republic of China, 2006. The 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–2010). The People’s Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese). The United States Department of Agriculture, 2015. http://www.usda.gov/wps/ portal/usda/usdahome Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., Befort, B.L., 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 20260–20264. Verhoeve, A., Dewaelheyns, V., Kerselaers, E., Rogge, E., Gulinck, H., 2015. Virtual farmland: grasping the occupation of agricultural land by non-agricultural land uses. Land Use Policy 42, 547–556. Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E.G., Peters, G.P., Steen-Olsen, K., Galli, A., 2013. Affluence drives the global displacement of land use. Global Environ. Change 23, 433–438. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Turner, K., Barrett, J., 2007. Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities—Part 2: Review of input?output models for the assessment of environmental impacts embodied in trade. Ecol. Econ. 61, 15–26. Wood, R., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., Lundie, S., 2006. A comparative study of some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia. Agric. Syst. 89, 324–348. Yu, Y., Feng, K., Hubacek, K., 2013. Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Global Environ. Change 23, 1178–1186.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Global supply chain of arable land use: Production-based and consumption-based trade imbalance G.Q. Chen a,b,∗ , M.Y. Han a,b,∗ a b
College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, PR China NAAM Group, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 13 June 2015 Received in revised form 14 July 2015 Accepted 20 July 2015 Keywords: Global supply chain Input-output analysis Arable land use Food supply Trade imbalance
a b s t r a c t Closely related to food supply, arable land use has been extensively studied, especially regarding booming global trade activities. However, the analysis on trade patterns of arable land use, particularly in terms of intermediate use and final demand, is still lacking. To shed light on the complex arable land use relationships among economies, the global supply chain of arable land use is intensively explored in the present work by a systems multi-regional input-output analysis for the year of 2010, with focus on the trade patterns from the perspective of production and consumption. Global arable land use embodied in international trade is estimated near one third the global arable land use, and that embodied in intermediate use is almost twice that embodied in final demand. Arable land use trade patterns are noted in terms of production-based imports/exports and consumption-based imports/exports. Most notably, Mainland China is shown as the leading production-dominated importer. With regard to other large economies, Canada is found as a production-oriented exporter, in contrast to Australia as a consumption-oriented exporter. Japan is identified as a production-oriented importer, while the United States is a consumptionoriented importer. As heavy trade imbalance is revealed prevailing not only between countries and regions but also between intermediate products and final goods, the study to explore global supply chains of arable land use can provide essential policy making implications for security and sustainability in arable land use and food supply on both global and regional scales. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Food supply is always a global focus. Since a surge in international cereal prices over 2007 and 2008, over 130 million people were affected, and 75 million additional people became malnourished (Headey, 2011). In global food supply chains, a significant role has been played by huge arable land use hidden in booming commodity trade (Qiang et al., 2013; Tilman et al., 2011). A country consumes massive amounts of goods and services from both domestic and global markets, and thus imposes pressure not only on its domestic arable land resources, but also upon other countries and regions’ (Verhoeve et al., 2015; Weinzettel et al., 2013). In context of the inter-connected global economy that features an intensive correlated supply chain (Davis and Caldeira, 2010), the
∗ Corresponding authors at: College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, PR China. Tel.: +86 10 62767167; Fax: +86 10 62754280. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G.Q. Chen), [email protected] (M.Y. Han). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.023 0264-8377/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
analysis on global supply chains of arable land use gains its essential significance (Garrett et al., 2013a,b). Developed and refined by Leontief (1986), input–output analysis (IOA) method played an important role in guiding macroeconomic policies (Lenzen et al., 2013a; Peters and Hertwich, 2008). By interconnecting resource flows and environmental impacts to categories of both intermediate use and final demand through inter-industrial connections, IOA method is well-established to analyze ecological elements and environmental resources in the globalized economic system (Chen and Chen, 2011a,b). This method presents a swift extension to land use accounting (Hubacek and Sun, 2001; Lenzen et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2006). Subsequently, land use accounting on the global, national, and urban scales have been a recent concern (Guo et al., 2014; Lenzen et al., 2007; Steen-Olsen et al., 2012; Wiedmann et al., 2007). Among them the land use transferring throughout the world has arrested extensive attention, in which the comprehensive analyses on global land displacement and discussions on global land concerns were fully elaborated (Weinzettel et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2013). In addition to the above up–down analyses, physical accounting as a kind of process analysis method made a great contribution to land use
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
119
Table 1 Multi-regional input–output table for global economy.
Intermediate use
Output Region 1
Region 1
Input
Sector 1
Sector
n
…
Final demand Region m
Sector 1
Sector
Region m
Region 1
n
Sector 1
Sector
n
Region m
zijrs
f iirs
Sector 1
Sector
n
Resources use
uir
accounting as well on basis of international and regional food trade data (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2002; Kastner and Nonhebel, 2010; Kastner et al., 2011, 2012). Above mentioned studies are considered valuable for land use assessment. However, the analysis on trade patterns of arable land use, particularly in terms of intermediate use and final demand, is still lacking. Compared to trade in final goods and services, trade of intermediates is more sensitive to trade costs and inert to bilateral market size (Miroudot et al., 2009). Besides, trade flows somewhat tend to be dominated by intermediate products instead of final goods (Miroudot et al., 2009). Taking up nearly two thirds the global trade volume, intermediate trade deserves certain attention (Johnson and Noguera, 2011). At the moment, countries such as the United States, Japan, Russia, and the European Union are facing an economic downturn. For Mainland China, the economy has stepped into the “new normal” age with a growth rate at around 7%. In the same period, some emerging economies are flourishing. Tremendous changes have taken place, and an urgent need is required to explore the global supply chains of arable land use. In this context, the global supply chain of arable land use is intensively explored in the present work by means of a systems multi-regional input–output analysis. With focus on the trade patterns from the perspective of production and consumption, relationships of arable land use between economies are clearly elaborated with descriptive statistics and systematic analysis. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 articulates the method employed in this study, Section 3 summarizes the detailed results, Section 4 discusses the trade patterns in different economies, and in the final section the concluding remarks are drawn.
resources and emissions profiles associated with economic flows. Extended from the economic input–output table, the ecological multi-regional input-output table is built profiling both monetary and ecological flows of the target system, with m regions each involving n sectors as presented in Table 1. For the global economy concerned, the systems conservation for resource use of Sector i in Region r requires: uri +
n m
sj zjisr = ri xir
(1)
s=1 j=1
where uri represents direct resources input of Sector i in Region r, sj
represents embodied intensity of Sector j in Region s, zjisr represents output from Sector j in Region s for intermediate input to Sector i in Region r, xir represents gross output of Sector i in Region r given as: xir =
n m
m
zijrs +
s=1 j=1
fiirs
(2)
s=1
where fiirs represents output from Sector i in Region r for final demand of Sector i in Region s. Subsequently, the conservative matric form can be expressed as: U + EZ = E Xˆ
(3)
in which, U = matrix Xˆ = [xijrs ]
[uri ]1×mn , mn×mn
E=
[sj ] , 1×mn
Z=
[zjisr ] , mn×mn
diagonal
, where r, s ∈ (1, 2, . . ., m), i, j ∈ (1, 2, . . ., n),
xijrs = xir when (i = j) ∩ (r = s) and xijrs = 0 when (i = / j) ∪ (r = / s), and in which diagonal matrix Fˆ = [fijrs ]
mn×mn
, where r, s ∈ (1, 2, . . ., m),
i, j ∈ (1, 2, . . ., n), fijrs = fir when (i = j) ∩ (r = s) and fijrs = 0 when
2. Method and materials To quantify and analyze the embodiment of resources and emissions in different economic activities, input–output tables, in particular multi-region input–output tables, are well-employed for exploring economic interdependency of different economies and frequently applied to assess human induced energy and environmental issues, such as energy consumption (Chen and Chen, 2013a), carbon emissions (Chen et al., 2013; Peters and Hertwich, 2008), water use (Chen and Chen, 2013b; Han et al., 2014, 2015; Lenzen et al., 2013a), and land displacement (Weinzettel et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2013). This method integrates ecological endowments and environmental emissions with economic network to reveal the
(i = / j) ∪ (r = / s). Therefore, with properly given direct inputs matrix U, intermeˆ the embodied diate inputs matrix Z, and total outputs matrix X, intensity matrix can be obtained as:
E = U Xˆ − Z
−1
(4)
In this way, the embodied intensity based on the conservation law is obtained equally applicable to both intermediate use and final demand, to support systems accounting for all the intersectoral and inter-regional supply chains. This is different to the case with the conventional environmentally-extended IOA, where direct input of environmental resources for each sector is assigned to the virtual use of environmental resources of final demand by
120
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 1. Arable land use of 189 economies (black bar represents direct arable land use, white bar represents production-based arable land use, and grey bar represents consumption-based arable land use).
that sector, and correspondingly the virtual intensity is only defined for the final demand, irrelevant to the intermediates. Specific to trade, production-based resources imports and exports (TEIM and TEEX), respectively defined as intermediate resources imports and exports for domestic production, can be obtained as: r
TEIM =
n
TEIMir
=
n m n
TEEX =
(5)
/ r) j=1 i=1 s=1(s =
i=1
r
(sj zjisr )
n
TEEXir
=
n m n
(6)
Correspondingly, consumption-based resources imports and exports (FEIM and FEEX), respectively defined as final resources imports and exports for domestic demand, can be obtained as: FEIM r =
n
FEIMir =
m n
FEEX r =
n
(si fiisr )
(7)
(ri fiirs )
(8)
/ r) i=1 s=1(s =
i=1
FEEXir =
m n
i=1
TNEIM r = TEIM r − TEEX r
(11)
FNEIM r = FEIM r − FEEX r
(12)
Thus, total net resources imports (NEIM) can be obtained as: NEIM r = TNEIM r +FNEIM r
(ri zijrs )
/ r) j=1 i=1 s=1(s =
i=1
Furthermore, net resources trade (imports here) embodied in intermediate use (TNEIM) and final demand (FNEIM) can be obtained as:
/ r) i=1 s=1(s =
Thus, total resources embodied in imports and exports (EIM and EEX) can be obtained as: EIM r = TEIM r + FEIM r
(9)
EEX r = TEEX r + FEEX r
(10)
(13)
With given matrices, production-based resources use, defined as total resources for domestic production, can be obtained as: TEF r = U r + TNEIM r
(14)
Correspondingly, consumption-based resources use, defined as total resources for domestic demand, can be obtained as: FEF r = E Fˆ r + FNEIM r
(15)
With the aid of embodiment analysis, the arable land use embodied in global trade is investigated by resorting to data from Euro database (Lenzen et al., 2012, 2013b) and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations database (FAO, 2010). The detailed data in 2010 are applied in this study with details presented in Appendix Table A.1. For now, Eora database is the most detailed multi-regional input–output database covering 189 individual economies with 26-sector harmonized classification. As for arable land use data, the FAO (2010) database is applied to analyze mankind requirements for production and consumption.
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
121
Fig. 2. Arable land use trade connections within top 17 trading economies and 3 units. The thickness of the connecting lines in (a) respects each economy’s gross exporting volume of arable land use, and in (b) respects each economy’s net exporting volume of arable land use. The connecting lines’ colors correspond to the exporting regions. The circle in (a) is scaled according to the global gross trade volume of arable land use, and in (b) is scaled according to the global net trade volume of arable land use. Note the large difference between global gross trade volume (471.94 million ha) and global net trade volume (386.51 million ha). These figures are created based on scripting languages and details refer to Krzywinski et al. (2009).
3. Results
3.2. Global arable land use trade connections
An overview on global arable land use profiles with focus on that embodied in intermediate use and final demand is presented below.
The gross and net trade volumes of arable land use in 189 economies are quantified for analysis. The United States is the world’s leading gross exporter and importer of arable land use, followed by Germany and Mainland China. Overall, the typical net arable land use importer, Japan, imports a huge amount of arable land use that reaches 32.33 million ha, 7 times its direct arable land use. The situation in Singapore is more obvious, in which about 7500 times the direct arable land use are imported to meet its demand. As an economy with huge arable land use, the United States imports take up almost 1/3 its direct arable land use. As for the European Union, the arable land use imports almost equal to its direct arable land use. The paired relationships within top 17 trading economies and 3 unions are illustrated in Fig. 2, in which 27 economies in the European Union, all the African economies, and the remaining economies are respectively recognized as distinct unions. It is worth noting that some developing countries, such as India, Myanmar and economies in Africa, export considerable arable land use, while some developed countries such as the United States, Japan, and South Korea are identified to be net arable land use receivers. Considering all the African economies as a union, it is the world’s leading supplier for arable land use (net arable land use exports of 77.12 million ha), in contrast to the European Union as a leading receiver (net arable land use imports of 67.54 million ha). As the world’s trading centers, the United States and the European Union together account for about 40% of global arable land use trade volume, while the emerging economies including Mainland China, India and African economies have already occupied more than 20%.
3.1. Direct, Production-based and Consumption-based arable land use Three types of arable land use in terms of direct arable land use, production-based arable land use, and consumption-based arable land use are quantified and presented in Fig. 1, with details presented in Appendix Table A.2. From Fig. 1, the top 5 economies are noticed as the United States, India, Russia, Mainland China, and Brazil. The United States ranks the first with 163.87 million hectares (ha) of production-based arable land use and 176.84 million ha of consumption-based arable land use, while India occupies the leading position with 157.01 million ha of direct arable land use. As for Mainland China, the direct arable land use, production-based arable land use, and consumption-based arable land use are respectively quantified as 107.22 million, 123.03 million, and 121.84 million ha, in which the production-based arable land use is the largest one. Given further assessment on the three types of arable land use, the production-based arable land use occupies the leading position in economies such as India and Mainland China, while the consumption-based arable land use is outstanding in economies such as the United States and Russia. Among all the economies, the largest gap between production-based and consumption-based arable land use is noted in Japan with an amount of 17.35 million ha, followed by Australia with 14.47 million ha and Hong Kong, China with 13.08 million ha.
122
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 3. Arable land use trade in 189 economies (black part of each bar represents intermediate arable land use imports and exports, and white part represents final arable land use imports and exports).
3.3. Production-based & Consumption-based arable land use trade Arable land use trade embodied in intermediate use and final demand, respectively deemed as intermediate and final arable land use, are further quantified and presented in Fig. 3, with details presented in Appendix Table A.3 and A.4. With the separate assessment of arable land use trade, different kinds of trade patterns are noted. Even though Canada and Australia are both large arable land use exporters, Canada is more inclined to export intermediate arable land use while Australia tends to export final arable land use. With regards to imports, economies such as Japan prefer intermediate arable land use, while economies such as the United States receive more final arable land use. The ratios between intermediate and final arable land use trade of 189 economies are presented in Fig. 4. For different economies, different shares of trade volumes of intermediate and final arable land use would further reflect their reserves and utilization of arable land resources. The largest ratios are noticed in Belarus, for which the ratios between intermediate and final arable land use trade volumes almost reach 100. Kuwait, Israel, and Moldova are also characterized by extreme high ratios between intermediate and final arable land use trade volumes. 3.4. Production-based & Consumption-based arable land use trade connections The intermediate and final arable land use trade relationships within top 17 trading economies and 3 distinct unions are illustrated in Fig. 5. With 11.87 million ha of intermediate arable land use exports, Canada serves much for the United States. African
economies are also recognized as large intermediate arable land use importers for the United States with a total amount of 4.59 million ha. Correspondingly, Mexico is a final arable land use exporter for the United States with an amount of 2.42 million ha. As an impressive arable land use supply union, Africa exports massive intermediate arable land use to European Union and Japan, 33.06 million and 7.55 million ha respectively. Another large arable land use supplier, India, exports arable land use to the European Union with 4.05 million ha of intermediate arable land use and 2.68 million ha of final arable land use. Considering only the intermediate arable land use trade, the volume of African economies reaches 76.81 million ha, accounting for more than 12% of the total trade volume of intermediate arable land use. From this point, developing and emerging economies are to some extent occupying increasingly significant positions than the traditional powers in global arable land use connections.
3.5. Major arable land use trading economies By separating intermediate and final arable land use, Fig. 6 lists the top 20 largest gross and net trading economies. The United States is the world’s leading gross exporter and importer of arable land use (52.04 million and 37.61 million ha, respectively), followed by Germany with 40.61 million ha of gross imports and 22.60 million ha of gross exports. Japan holds the leading place as the largest receiver with 29.99 million ha of net arable land use imports. In contrast, Australia is the leading supplier with 19.03 million ha of net arable land use exports. Based on the separate trade volumes, economies such as Mainland China, Belgium, Brazil, and Mexico are found with dual roles
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
123
Fig. 4. Arable land use trade ratios in 189 economies (black part represents ratios between intermediate and final arable land use exports, and white part represents ratios between final and intermediate arable land use imports).
as net intermediate arable land use receivers and final suppliers. 4. Analysis To conduct further assessment of global arable land use, different arable land use trade patterns and distinctive trading economies are discussed below. 4.1. Production-oriented & Consumption-oriented trade patterns When arable land use trade for intermediate use and final demand is clearly separated and quantified, the trade patterns of arable land use in different economies are clearly distinguished. Based on different ratios of arable land use embodied in intermediate use and final demand, trade patterns of all the 189 economies are obtained and presented in Fig. 7, in which the size of spheres represents each economy’s gross trading volume. Generally, arable land use trade embodied in intermediate use is almost twice that embodied in final demand. Thus, by taking global general trade pattern into consideration, the normalized arable land use trade patterns are presented in Fig. 7(b), with parting lines dividing economies into four kinds of trade patterns in terms of productionbased imports/exports and consumption-based imports/exports. In Fig. 7(b), economies close to the vertical axis tend to be production-oriented, while these close to the horizontal axis tend to be consumption-oriented. Canada is found as a net productionoriented exporter, in contrast to Australia as a net consumptionoriented exporter. Japan is identified as a net production-oriented importer, while the United States is a net consumption-oriented importer. Specific to the economies close to the coordinate axes, Belarus is found as a net production-dominated exporter, in con-
trast to Thailand as a net consumption-dominated exporter. Israel is a net production-dominated importer, while Russia is a net consumption-dominated importer. More remarkable are the few economies noticed in the fourth quadrant: Mainland China is the most prominent net production-dominated importer, followed by Netherlands and Belgium. Overall, many economies particularly some emerging economies, are highly dependent on intermediate exports. This situation reflects the relatively weak domestic basic industrial structure in those economies, and furthermore exacerbates a widening deficit of resources. 4.2. Distinctive trading economies Based on the global arable land use connections, several economies are noteworthy because of their different trade patterns between intermediate and final arable land use. Economies such as Mainland China, Netherlands, Belgium, Brazil, and Turkey are net intermediate arable land use receivers and final suppliers, while economies such as Egypt, Algeria, and Paraguay are net intermediate suppliers and final receivers. Fig. 8 presents economies with different trade patterns with details presented in Appendix Table A.5. As the most predominant, Mainland China imports 15.81 million ha of arable land use for intermediate production, meanwhile exporting 0.60 million ha for others’ demand. With one-fifth of the world’s population and only one-twentieth of world’s arable land, China is always plagued by arable land issues. For decades, China has experienced large-scale expansion of built-up land (i.e., land used for building structures and infrastructure) and a rapid loss of arable land, especially in metropolises (Liu et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2005). Even though Mainland China has set the “red line” of 120
124
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 5. Intermediate and final arable land use trade connections within top 17 trading economies and 3 units. The thickness of the connecting lines in (a) and (b) respects each economy’s gross exporting volume of arable land use, and in (c) and (d) respects each economy’s net exporting volume of arable land use. The connecting lines’ colors correspond to the exporting regions. The circle in (a) is scaled according to the global gross intermediate trade volume of arable land use, in (b) is scaled according to the global gross final trade volume of arable land use, in (c) is scaled according to the global net intermediate trade volume of arable land use, and in (d) is scaled according to the global net final trade volume of arable land use. Note the large difference among global gross intermediate trade volume (310.24 million ha), global gross final trade volume (161.71 million ha), global net intermediate trade volume (274.30 million ha), and global net final trade volume (125.06 million ha).
million ha for arable land conservation (The State Department of the People’s Republic of China, 2006), loss of such land was still virtually inevitable over the past years (Song, 2014). Most seriously, the land management policies were released mainly referring to direct land use assessment, which makes the situation even worse (Chen and Han, 2015; Long, 2014). As mentioned above, Mainland China’s trade patterns of arable land use for intermediate use and final demand are totally different, with details presented in Fig. 9. Overall, Myanmar, Russia, Australia
and several African economies are noted as Mainland China’s main suppliers of arable land use. In the meantime, Mainland China exports arable land use to some nearby economies such as Japan and South Korea. Among all the trading flows in and out of Mainland China, it is witnessed that flows exported to Mainland China mainly come from intermediate arable land use especially from Myanmar, Russia, Australia, and the African economies, which occupies almost a half share of the total imports. As for final demand,
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 6. Arable land use trade in top 20 trading economies.
125
126
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 7. Arable land use trade patterns (unit: million ha). The size of the spheres respects each economy’s gross trading volume, with the trade volume of the United States as 89.66 million ha for reference.
Fig. 8. Top 12 trading economies with different arable land use trade patterns.
Mainland China mainly imports from Australia, followed by Myanmar and Russia. Meanwhile, Mainland China exports final arable land use to Japan, the European Union, and the United States with areas of 1.57 million, 1.64 million, and 2.15 million ha,
respectively. Thus, in view of the final demand trade, Mainland China is a net exporter with 0.60 million ha of arable land use exports. Given the arable land “red line” set in China, the amount of arable land use exports has essential implications
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
127
Fig. 9. Mainland China’s arable land use connections embodied in (a) final demand and (b) intermediate use (unit: 1,000 ha).
for current policies that are rested on direct land use assessment.
4.3. Discussion on economies Fig. 10 displays the largest net arable land use trade flows between economies on the globe. From Fig. 10(a), the United States is a net importer of both intermediate and final arable land use with areas of 7.94 million and 6.48 million ha, respectively. The intermediate arable land use from Canada to the United States is
predominant, which is much higher than the final one embodied in trade. Even though the United States is a net importer of both intermediate and final arable land use, it still exports massive amounts of arable land use for Japan, South Korean, and Hong Kong, China. As the largest net exporter of the United States, Japan imports 4.87 million ha of arable land use from the United States. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to the increasing subsidies to agriculture industry that are supported by the American institute of agricultural and trade policies in the past 20 years (The United States Department of Agriculture, 2015), which has precip-
128
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Fig. 10. Global arable land use connections in (a) intermediate useand (b) final demand (unit: 100,000 ha).
itated the United States’ scale cultivation and industrialization of agriculture industry and caused huge impacts on other economies’ agriculture-related industry. Compared to the United States, India is a typical large arable land use exporter with a net exporting volume reaching 8.36 million ha. For now, agrarian developing countries such as India still maintain high tariffs and low quotas to protect domestic agricul-
ture industry (Perali et al., 2012). However India is still a large arable land use exporter from not only the intermediate arable land use connections but also the final ones. Arable land use exports from India to the European Union (6.73 million ha) are about 9 times the imports in opposite direction to the counterparts. The volume from India to the United States is even 16 times the imports in opposite direction.
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
For now, global food crisis is aggravated by global climate change, population growth, arable land shrinking, and bioenergy development (Kongsager and Reenberg, 2012; Lopes et al., 2015). Besides, support policies are implemented to protect domestic agriculture industry (The United States Department of Agriculture, 2015). Associated with the expanding globalization, changes in each economy will express huge impacts to the other economies on the globe (Antonelli et al., 2015). As agriculture related industry is the most protected in both developing and developed countries, trade liberalization encountered a dilemma especially in the period of global food crisis. However, as single resource constraints are not sufficiently comprehensive for the conservation of local resources, it is significant for every individual economy to deeply understand the development trend of globalization and adjust own trade structure in correspondence with self-advantage.
5. Concluding remarks In consideration of the diversity and complexity of global arable land use connections, this study provides insight into productionbased and consumption-based arable land uses and trade patterns of 189 economies on basis of a systems multi-regional input-output analysis. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to analyze global arable land use with a distinction between intermediate use and final demand, and systematically elaborate global arable land use issues from the perspective of production and consumption. In the current context of unprecedented globalization, global flows are playing an ever-larger role in connecting nations, regions, and individuals. Overall, arable land use embodied in international trade has already reached one third the global arable land use, and the arable land use trade embodied in intermediate use is almost twice that in final demand. With the separation of arable land use trade embodied in intermediate use and final demand, four kinds of arable land use trade patterns are identified in terms of productionbased imports/exports and consumption-based imports/exports. Most notably, Mainland China is shown typically as a productiondominated arable land use importer. With regard to other large economies, Canada is deemed as a production-oriented exporter, in contrast to Australia as a typical consumption-oriented exporter. Japan is identified as a production-oriented importer, while the United States is a consumption-oriented importer. As agriculture related industry is the most protected in almost all the countries and regions, an in-depth understanding of global supply chains of arable land use is of great significance. Closely related to the booming global economy, the land occupation type is transforming from original “colonial” land to inter-national land use trade imbalance. For each economy, adjusting trade structure in correspondence with self-advantage and targeting self-localization in global systems are substantial to follow the rules hidden in global trade activities. As heavy trade imbalance is revealed prevailing not only between countries and regions but also between intermediate products and final goods, different arable land use trade patterns should be further investigated to ease issues in terms of food security and land deficits in the context of increasingly high level of inter-connectivity and complicacy of global trade activities.
Acknowledgement This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 11272012).
129
Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015. 07.023 References Antonelli, M., Siciliano, G., Turvani, M.E., Rulli, M.C., 2015. Global investments in agricultural land and the role of the EU: drivers, scope and potential impacts. Land Use Policy 47, 98–111. Chen, G.Q., Han, M.Y., 2015. Virtual land use change in China 2002–2010: internal transition and trade imbalance. Land Use Policy 47, 55–65. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., 2011a. An overview of energy consumption of the globalized world economy. Energy Policy 39, 5920–5928. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., 2011b. Embodied carbon dioxide emission at supra-national scale: a coalition analysis for G7, BRIC, and the rest of the world. Energy Policy 39, 2899–2909. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., 2007. Demand-driven energy requirement of world economy 2007: a multi-region input–output network simulation. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 18, 1757–1774. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., 2013b. Virtual water accounting for the globalized world economy: national water footprint and international virtual water trade. Ecol. Indic. 28, 142–149. Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., Chen, B., 2013. Embodied carbon dioxide emission by the globalized economy: a systems ecological input-output simulation. J. Environ. Inf. 21 (1), 35–44. Davis, S.J., Caldeira, K., 2010. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 5687–5692. FAO, 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www. fao.org/home/en/ Garrett, R.D., Lambin, E.F., Naylor, R.L., 2013a. Land institutions and supply chain configurations as determinants of soybean planted area and yields in Brazil. Land Use Policy 31, 385–396. Garrett, R.D., Lambin, E.F., Naylor, R.L., 2013b. The new economic geography of land use change: Supply chain configurations and land use in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 34, 265–275. Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Nonhebel, S., Ivens, W.P.M.F., 2002. A method to determine land requirements relating to food consumption patterns. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 90, 47–58. Guo, S., Shen, G.Q., Chen, Z.M., Yu, R., 2014. 2014. Embodied cultivated land use in China 1987–2007. Ecol. Indic. 47, 198–209. Han, M.Y., Chen, G.Q., Mustafa, M.T., Hayat, T., Shao, L., Li, J.S., Xia, X.H., Ji, X., 2015. Embodied water for urban economy: a three-scale input-output analysis for Beijing 2010. Ecol. Model., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.05.024 Han, M.Y., Guo, S., Chen, H., Ji, X., Li, J.S., 2014. Local-scale systems input–output analysis of embodied water for the Beijing economy in 2007. Front. Earth Sci. 8, 414–426. Headey, D., 2011. Rethinking the global food crisis: the role of trade shocks. Food Policy 36, 136–146. Hubacek, K., Sun, L., 2001. A scenario analysis of China’s land use and land cover change: incorporating biophysical information into input?output modeling. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dynam. 12, 367–397. Johnson, R.C., Noguera, G., 2011. Accounting for intermediates: production sharing and trade in value added. http://www.freit.org/WorkingPapers/Papers/ TradePatterns/FREIT063pdf Kastner, T., Ibarrola Rivas, M.J., Koch, W., Nonhebel, S., 2012. Global changes in diets and the consequences for land requirements for food. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 6868–6872. Kastner, T., Kastner, M., Nonhebel, S., 2011. Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1032–1040. Kastner, T., Nonhebel, S., 2010. Changes in land requirements for food in the Philippines: a historical analysis. Land Use Policy 27. Kongsager, R., Reenberg, A., 2012. Contemporary land-use transitions: the global oil palm expansion. In: GLP Report No. 4. GLP-IPO, Copenhagen. Krzywinski, M., Schein, J., Birol, I., Connors, J., Gascoyne, R., Horsman, D., Jones, S.J., Marra, M.A., 2009. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome. Res. 19, 1639–1645. Lenzen, M., Borgstrom Hansson, C., Bond, S., 2007. On the bioproductivity and land-disturbance metrics of the ecological footprint. Ecol. Econ. 61, 6–10. Lenzen, M., Kanemoto, K., Moran, D., Geschke, A., 2012. Mapping the structure of the world economy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 8374–8381. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Bhaduri, A., Kanemoto, K., Bekchanov, M., Geschke, A., Foran, B., 2013a. International trade of scarce water. Ecol. Econ. 94, 78–85. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Geschke, A., 2013b. Building eora: a global multi-regional input-output database at high country and sector resolution. Econ. Syst. Res. 25, 20–49. Lenzen, M., Murray, S.A., Korte, B., Dey, C.J., 2003. Environmental impact assessment including indirect effects: a case study using input–output analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23, 263–282. Leontief, W., 1986. Input–output Economics. Oxford University Press, New York. Liu, Y., Fang, F., Li, Y., 2014. Key issues of land use in China and implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 40, 6–12.
130
G.Q. Chen, M.Y. Han / Land Use Policy 49 (2015) 118–130
Long, H., 2014. Land use policy in China: introduction. Land use policy 40, 1–5. Lopes, L.F.G., dos Santos Bento, J.M.R., Arede Correia Cristovão, A.F., Baptista, F.O., 2015. Exploring the effect of land use on ecosystem services: The distributive issues. Land Use Policy 45, 141–149. Miroudot, S., Lanz, R., Ragoussis, A., 2009. Trade in intermediate goods and services. http://www.oecd.org/trade Perali, F., Pieroni, L., Standardi, G., 2012. World tariff liberalization in agriculture: an assessment using a global CGE trade model for EU15. J. Policy Model. 34, 155–180. Peters, G.P., Hertwich, E.G., 2008. CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 1401–1407. Qiang, W.L., Liu, A.M., Cheng, S.K., Kastner, T., Xie, G.D., 2013. Agricultural trade and virtual land use: the case of China’s crop trade. Land Use Policy 33, 141–150. Song, W., 2014. Decoupling cultivated land loss by construction occupation from economic growth in Beijing. Habitat Int. 43, 198–205. Steen-Olsen, K., Weinzettel, J., Cranston, G., Ercin, A.E., Hertwich, E.G., 2012. Carbon, land, and water footpriont accounts for the European Union: consumption, production, and displacements through international trade. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 10883–10891. Tan, M., Li, X., Xie, H., Lu, C., 2005. Urban land expansion and arable land loss in China—a case study of Beijing—Tianjin—Hebei region. Land Use Policy 22, 187–196.
The State Department of the People’s Republic of China, 2006. The 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–2010). The People’s Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese). The United States Department of Agriculture, 2015. http://www.usda.gov/wps/ portal/usda/usdahome Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., Befort, B.L., 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 20260–20264. Verhoeve, A., Dewaelheyns, V., Kerselaers, E., Rogge, E., Gulinck, H., 2015. Virtual farmland: grasping the occupation of agricultural land by non-agricultural land uses. Land Use Policy 42, 547–556. Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E.G., Peters, G.P., Steen-Olsen, K., Galli, A., 2013. Affluence drives the global displacement of land use. Global Environ. Change 23, 433–438. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Turner, K., Barrett, J., 2007. Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities—Part 2: Review of input?output models for the assessment of environmental impacts embodied in trade. Ecol. Econ. 61, 15–26. Wood, R., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., Lundie, S., 2006. A comparative study of some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia. Agric. Syst. 89, 324–348. Yu, Y., Feng, K., Hubacek, K., 2013. Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Global Environ. Change 23, 1178–1186.