Power law scaling and country-level centralization of global agricultural production and trade

Abstract

Global food production and international trade are rapidly expanding and drive increasing agricultural globalization and specialization. Following production patterns, network properties and added-value chains, exportable surpluses of countries can offset food and feed deficits in other countries. However, production and trade patterns are barely addressed in the scientific literature as two interactive components of global agriculture. Integrated analysis of the temporal dynamics and distribution patterns of production and trade among countries can put current food security challenges in perspective with ongoing trends, and support prospective modeling. Here, we analyze the interdependent patterns of global agricultural production and trade from 1986 to 2016. We class the total mass into six product categories - cereals, oilcrops, meat, fruits and vegetables, coffee, and cocoa. We estimate reexports in global trade by assessing mass balances of production, imports and exports per country. We show that global trade and reexports increase exponentially faster than production and that production and trade are highly centralized among a small number of countries. For most agricultural categories, the centralization of flows has increased in time for production and net exports, and has decreased for net imports and reexports. Accordingly, a growing number of deficient countries are sustained by a decreasing number of top-producing countries. In parallel, reexport routes gather a growing number of countries but are highly dominated by long-industrialized countries. We discuss the interdependencies between global agricultural production and trade patterns. We highlight the drivers and implications of the observed trends for food security challenges.

Drivers of Global Methane Emissions Embodied in International Beef Trade

“…However, along with worldwide increases in personal income, population, and living conditions improvements, demands for agricultural products (meat in particular) have been growing, − of which bovine meat (cattle and buffalo) from 2000 to 2018 increased monotonically by 21.7% (). Given the constraints in resources and environmental capacities, such growing meat demands and productions cannot be met in many countries and regions. , As an alternative, the international food trade provides an essential engine for the speedup of global food production. − Growth in all crop sectors and livestock production is associated with rising costs, increasing resource constraints, and environmental pressures . It is not a sustainable way to expand or convert vegetation lands and wetlands to croplands because this would otherwise increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions via declining carbon sinks and cause the loss of biodiversity and aggravation of sensitive ecosystems. , Under different climates, water and land resources and agricultural productivity differ in different places and countries.…”

Food transport emissions matter

“…So far, the focus has been mainly on producers and/or consumers. However, intermediary trading of agricultural commodities is fastly growing globally, which is centralized among a few countries 13 . In summary, Li and colleagues 7 have shown that food transport emissions matter for climate action more than previously thought.…”

Report on preliminary impact and policy insights from model and sectoral case study analysis: trade-linked cross-border impacts

“…Aside from these chokepoints, the stability and resilience of the global trade network is likely to be strongly conditioned by the structure of the network (Albert and Barabási, 2000). Dupas et al's (2022) analysis of the trade between 1986 and 2016 in cereals, oil crops, meat, fruits, vegetables, coffee, and cocoa found that production and trade are highly centralised among a small number of countries. Ultimately, this leaves a growing number of netimporting countries sourcing from a decreasing number of top-producing countries, increasing their vulnerability to supply shocks.…”