Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The global nexus of food–trade–water sustaining environmental flows by 2050


In the face of meeting Sustainable Development Goals for the water–food–energy–ecosystems nexus, integrated assessments are a great means to measure the impact of global change on natural resources. In this study, we evaluate the impact of climate change with the representative concentration pathway 8.5 scenario and the impact of socioeconomics with the shared socioeconomic pathway 2 scenario on land use, water consumption and food trade under four water regulation policy scenarios (invest, exploit, environment and environment+). We used the Global Biosphere Management Model and constrained it with water availability, environmental flow requirements, and water use from agriculture, industry and households (simulated using the Lund–Potsdam–Jena managed Land model, Environmental Policy Integrated Climate model and WaterGap model). Here, we show that an increase in land use by 100 Mha would be required to double food production by 2050, to meet projected food demands. International trade would need to nearly triple to meet future crop demands, with an additional 10–20% trade flow from water-abundant regions to water-scarce regions to sustain environmental flow requirements on a global scale.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Conceptual framework for the inclusion of water dynamics and climate scenarios in the GLOBIOM model.
Fig. 2: Total crop area and production under water management scenarios.
Fig. 3: Relative percentage changes in land use, water use and trade between 2000 and 2050 under different water management and climate change scenarios.
Fig. 4: Impact of climate change and implementation of EFRs on cropland distribution.
Fig. 5: Impact of climate change and respective EFRs on net trade in agricultural products.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request. General correspondence and requests for source data and materials should be addressed to A.V.P. Requests for access to code should be addressed to A.V.P and A.P. ( following institutional rules.


  1. 1.

    Living Planet Report 2010: Biodiversity, Biocapacity and Development (WWF International, 2010).

  2. 2.

    Living Planet Report 2016: Risk and Resilience in a New Era (WWF International, 2016).

  3. 3.

    Wada, Y. et al. Multimodel projections and uncertainties of irrigation water demand under climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 4626–4632 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision ESA working paper no. 12-03 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).

  5. 5.

    Molden, D. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (Earthscan, 2007).

  6. 6.

    Elliott, J. et al. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3239–3244 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ray, D. K., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C. & Foley, J. A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 8, e66428 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rosenzweig, C. et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3268–3273 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15594–15598 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Haddeland, I. et al. Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3251–3256 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Osborne, T., Gillian, R. & Wheeler, T. Variation in the global-scale impacts of climate change on crop productivity due to climate model uncertainty and adaptation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 170, 183–194 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Tester, M. & Langridge, P. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 327, 818–822 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Vrese, P., Stacke, T. & Hagemann, S. Exploring the biogeophysical limits of global food production under different climate change scenarios. Earth Syst. Dynam. 9, 393–412 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Poff, N. L. & Zimmerman, J. K. H. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshw. Biol. 55, 194–205 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Jägermeyr, J., Pastor, A., Biemans, H. & Gerten, D. Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for sustainable development goals implementation. Nat. Commun. 8, 15900 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kummu, M., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Konzmann, M. & Varis, O. Climate-driven interannual variability of water scarcity in food production potential: a global analysis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 447–461 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Qureshi, M. E., Hanjra, M. A. & Ward, J. Impact of water scarcity in Australia on global food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy 38, 136–145 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wheeler, T. & Von Braun, J. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341, 508–513 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Falkenmark, M., Rockström, J. & Karlberg, L. Present and future water requirements for feeding humanity. Food Secur. 1, 59–69 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    The Brisbane Declaration: environmental flows are essential for freshwater ecosystem health and human well-being. In Declaration of the 10th International River Symposium 3–6 (International River Foundation, 2007).

  21. 21.

    Tharme, R. E. A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res. Appl. 19, 397–441 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Richter, B. D. Re-thinking environmental flows: from allocations and reserves to sustainability boundaries. River Res. Appl. 26, 1052–1063 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Pastor, A. V., Ludwig, F., Biemans, H., Hoff, H. & Kabat, P. Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 10, 14987–15032 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Pastor, A. V., Ludwig, F., Biemans, H., Hoff, H. & Kabat, P. Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 5041–5059 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gerten, D. et al. Towards a revised planetary boundary for consumptive freshwater use: role of environmental flow requirements. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 551–558 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lampe, M. et al. Why do global long‐term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison. Agric. Econom. 45, 3–20 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Verburg, P. H., Schot, P. P., Dijst, M. J. & Veldkamp, A. Land use change modelling: current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal 61, 309–324 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Robinson, S. et al. Comparing supply‐side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system. Agric. Econom. 45, 21–35 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Dalin, C. & Rodríguez-Iturbe, I. Environmental impacts of food trade via resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 35012 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Wirsenius, S., Azar, C. & Berndes, G. How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agric. Syst. 103, 621–638 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Turner, R. E. & Rabalais, N. N. Linking landscape and water quality in the Mississippi River Basin for 200 years. AIBS Bull. 53, 563–572 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Martinez, P., Blanco, M., Doorslaer, B. V., Ramos, F. & Ceglar, A. What role will Climate Change play in EU agricultural markets? An integrated assessment taking into account carbon fertilization effects. Span. J. Agric. Res. 15, e0115 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Konar, M. et al. Water resources sustainability in a globalizing world: who uses the water? Hydrol. Process. 30, 3330–3336 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Suweis, S., Carr, J. A., Amos, M., Rinaldo, A. & D’Odorico, P. Resilience and reactivity of global food security. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 07366 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    DeFries, R. S. et al. Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience 62, 603–606 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Yu, B. & Lu, C. Change of cultivated land and its implications on food security in China. Chinese Geogr. Sci. 16, 299–305 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Margulis, M. E. The regime complex for food security: implications for the global hunger challenge. Glob. Gov. 19, 53–67 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Romo-Leon, J. R., Ven Leeuwen, W. J. D. & Castellanos-Villegas, A. Using remote sensing tools to assess land use transitions in unsustainable arid agro-ecosystems. J. Arid Environ. 106, 27–35 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Bazilian, M. et al. Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling approach. Ener. Policy 39, 7896–7906 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Rasul, G. Food, water, and energy security in South Asia: a nexus perspective from the Hindu Kush Himalayan region. Environ. Sci. Pol. 39, 35–48 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Fujimori, S. et al. SSP3: AIM implementation of shared socioeconomic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 268–283 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Schmitz, C. et al. Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: insights from a global agro-economic model comparison. Agric. Econ. 45, 69–84 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Leclère, D. et al. Climate change induced transformations of agricultural systems: insights from a global model. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 124018 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Fuss, S., Havlik, P., Szolgayova, J., Schmid, E. & Obersteiner, M. Large-scale modelling of global food security and adaptation under crop yield uncertainty. In Proc. EAAE (European Association of Agricultural Economists, 2011)

  47. 47.

    Palazzo, A. et al. Linking regional stakeholder scenarios and shared socioeconomic pathways: quantified West African food and climate futures in a global context. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 227–242 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  49. 49.

    Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Havlík, P. et al. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Ener. Policy 39, 5690–5702 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3709–3714 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    AQUASTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016);

  53. 53.

    Williams, J. R., Jones, C. A., Kiniry, J. R. & Spanel, D. A. The EPIC crop growth model. Trans. ASAE 32, 497–511 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    O’Neill, B. C. et al. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Samir, K. C. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100.Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the shared socioeconomic pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Kriegler, E. et al. The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 807–822 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Haberlandt, U., Lucht, W. & Sitch, S. Terrestrial vegetation and water balance—hydrological evaluation of a dynamic global vegetation model. J. Hydrol. 286, 249–270 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Rost, S. et al. Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its influence on the global water system. Water Resour. Res. 44, W09405 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Sitch, S. et al. Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 161–185 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Biemans, H. et al. Impact of reservoirs on river discharge and irrigation water supply during the 20th century. Water Resour. Res. 47, W03509 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Schewe, J. et al. Multimodel assessment of water scarcity under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3245–3250 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Liu, J., Williams, J. R., Zehnder, A. J. B. & Yang, H. GEPIC—modelling wheat yield and crop water productivity with high resolution on a global scale. Agric. Syst. 94, 478–493 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Dellink, R., Chateau, J., Lanzi, E. & Magné, B. Long-term economic growth projections in the shared socioeconomic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 200–214 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Sauer, T. et al. Agriculture and resource availability in a changing world: the role of irrigation. Water Resour. Res. 46, W06503 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Liu, J. et al. Water conservancy projects in China: achievements, challenges and way forward. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 633–643 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Siebert, S. et al. Groundwater use for irrigation—a global inventory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14, 1863–1880 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Flörke, M. et al. Domestic and industrial water uses of the past 60 years as a mirror of socio-economic development: a global simulation study. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 144–156 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Wada, Y. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Sustainability of global water use: past reconstruction and future projections. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 104003 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim. Change 109, 5–31 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J. & Piontek, F. A trend-preserving bias correction—the ISI–MIP approach. Earth Syst. Dynam. 4, 219–236 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Warszawski, L. et al. The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI–MIP): project framework. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3228–3232 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, Wageningen University and the GEF-funded Integrated Solutions for Water, Energy and Land (ISWEL; GEF contract agreement no. 6993) project for funding part of this research. This work was also funded by a Young Scientists Summer Program grant via the IIASA and Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. We thank S. Langan, A. Mosnier, T. Krisztin, E. Palis and M. Cantele for valuable input and comments, and S. Kronrod for revision and English language assistance.

Author information




A.V.P. and A.P conceptualized the model, wrote the Methods section and performed the model simulations. All authors developed the concepts and ideas. A.V.P. prepared the data input, performed the data analysis and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. V. Pastor.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Supplementary methods, Supplementary Figs. 1–9, Supplementary Tables 1–7, Supplementary discussion, Supplementary references 1–6

Supplementary Dataset 1

Global crop repartition as a pivot table per mega-region by 2050

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pastor, A.V., Palazzo, A., Havlik, P. et al. The global nexus of food–trade–water sustaining environmental flows by 2050. Nat Sustain 2, 499–507 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing