Rethinking foodscapes: How agricultural pollution threatens biodiversity and what we can do about it

Agriculture sustains humanity, but it also leaves a growing ecological footprint. Alongside climate change, agricultural pollution is now responsible for an estimated 14% of global biodiversity loss. This hidden crisis is reshaping ecosystems, water resources, and even human health; often in ways that remain unrecognized in policy and practice.

The 8th International Farming System Design Conference (FSD8), held in Paris from 25–29 August 2025, brought together researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to examine how farming systems can deliver on sustainability goals. Under the theme “Farming System Design for Sustainable Agrifood Systems: Theories and Practices,” the event featured plenary addresses, parallel sessions, and panel discussions on co-design, modelling, multicriteria assessment, and the future of agricultural systems.
The twin challenges of agricultural sustainability and pollution’s impact on biodiversity were central to the discussions during the conference, where a session by Cargele Masso, Deborah Mong’ina, and Javier Mateo-Sagasta highlighted how foodscapes must be redesigned having in mind the true cost accounting for food systems if they are to deliver sustainable and resilient futures.

The hidden cost of food systems

Modern farming relies heavily on fertilizers, pesticides, and antibiotics. While these inputs boost productivity, they also carry profound trade-offs, from soil degradation and polluted waterways to antimicrobial resistance. Yet the hidden costs of food systems extend far beyond production. The way we process, transport, consume, and waste food fuels climate change, strains water and energy resources, drives biodiversity loss, and burdens public health systems. These costs are rarely reflected in the price we pay at the market, but they shape the resilience and sustainability of our societies. These hidden costs manifest in multiple ways:

• Pesticides undermine ecosystem health, farmer health, consumer safety, pollinators, and water quality.
• Excess nitrogen and phosphorus wash into rivers and lakes, fueling eutrophication and creating “dead zones.”
• Heavy metals and plastics accumulate in soils and aquatic systems, creating toxic environments for plants, fish, and birds.
• Antibiotics and disinfectants accelerate antimicrobial resistance, threatening One Health (i.e., ecosystem, animal and human health).

Some of these pollutants persist, bioaccumulate, and biomagnify, leaving long-lasting scars on biodiversity and ecosystem functions.

Why low- and middle-income countries are hit hardest

In many African, Asian, and Latin American countries, environmental monitoring is scarce. For instance, in Kenya, fertilizer use is primarily evaluated in terms of crop productivity, while little attention is given to tracking nutrient losses through leaching, runoff, and emissions. Nitrogen leaks, pesticide residues, and other pollutants often remain unaddressed due to data gaps and limited integration into policy instruments. Weak knowledge-management systems mean that farming systems are often designed without accounting for the true costs of food systems, including agricultural production.

This lack of monitoring and reporting makes low- and middle-income countries particularly vulnerable, as pollution burdens accumulate unnoticed while biodiversity and community health quietly erode.

Building knowledge and institutional capacity to drive change

The good news is that tools and frameworks already exist to shift farming systems towards sustainability. Promising approaches include:

• Integrated nutrient management to reduce fertilizer waste and pollution.
• Integrated pest and disease management to cut pesticide dependence.
• Regenerative agriculture and agroecology to restore soil and ecosystem health.
• Circular economy models to reduce waste and reuse resources.

In addition, monitoring and reporting frameworks; tracking soil health, ecosystem health and restoration, nutrient cycles, and One Health outcomes can help governments, institutions, and farmers make informed choices and respond effectively to national, regional, and global commitments. Yet, without consistent monitoring, countries also miss the chance to build institutional capacity, the infrastructure, skills, and systems required to manage pollution and biodiversity loss effectively.

Global frameworks offer valuable guidance, for instance, the OECD Rio markers on biodiversity and environment already encourage governments and donors to align financing with sustainability objectives. Strengthening national monitoring and institutional capacity can help translate such global markers into actionable data and strategies on the ground. At FSD8, participants emphasized that multicriteria assessment and participatory approaches are powerful tools for embedding these indicators into farming system design.

Designing future foodscapes

Current food systems emphasize productivity, food and nutrition security, and poverty reduction as markers of success, while paying far less attention to ecological impacts and social equity. To change course, we need:

• Policy coherence that balances sustainability, productivity, economic, and social priorities.
• Eco-friendly innovations that are accessible (i.e., available and affordable) to smallholders.
• Capacity sharing, from technology to knowledge transfer; to level the playing field nationally, regionally and globally.

The way forward is clear: farming systems must be designed with the lens of true cost accounting for food systems. This means not only pursuing productivity but also accounting for socio-ecological costs and investing in long-term resilience for healthy people and planet.

A call to action

Food systems do not have to be a driver of biodiversity loss. With intentional design, robust monitoring and reporting, and strong policy support, foodscapes can become nature-positive systems; safeguarding biodiversity, restoring ecosystems, while ensuring food and nutrition security and improved livelihood for the current and future generations.

The challenge is urgent. The solutions are at hand. What remains is the willingness to act.