Clarifying the difference between natural ecosystems and agricultural use

Preventing deforestation and habitat loss from agricultural expansion is a priority for companies, governments, and sustainability initiatives around the world. To set and implement deforestation- and conversion-free (DCF) commitments, companies must be able to identify instances of deforestation or conversion in their supply chains. This requires differentiating between natural ecosystems and agriculture using clear definitions.  

To provide such clarity, the Accountability Framework includes definitions of terms such as agricultural use, forest, and natural ecosystem. This article provides an overview of these terms, how they are applied, and what this means for companies implementing and monitoring DCF policies. 

Natural ecosystems and agriculture as discrete land uses 

Many international systems that define, monitor, or regulate land use patterns consider agriculture to be mutually exclusive to forests and other natural ecosystems. This includes the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Forest Resources Assessments, the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), and the Accountability Framework.

This mutually exclusive distinction facilitates the detection, mapping, and monitoring of deforestation and conversion due to agricultural expansion. It also enables companies to implement, monitor, and report against no-deforestation or DCF policies throughout their supply chains.

In the large majority of cases, distinctions between natural ecosystems and annual and perennial cropland are very clear. This reflects the reality that the establishment of cropland generally displaces the pre-existing natural ecosystem. Cropland includes annual crops (such as grains, oilseeds, and vegetables), perennial crops (such as coffee, fruit orchards, and oil palms), and crops grown in agroforestry systems, which the FAO and others explicitly define as an agricultural use. There are certain cases where agricultural crops may occur in natural ecosystems, such as wild-harvested coffee in Ethiopia, but these are uncommon and do not contribute heavily to international supply chains.  

What about livestock? 

While distinctions between natural ecosystems and cropland are usually clear, this is less frequently the case for livestock production. This is because livestock raising often occurs within natural ecosystems. Such practices are widespread and are an important part of many traditional and modern livestock production systems. 

In many contexts, responsibly managed livestock grazing can be compatible with the maintenance or even restoration of natural grasslands, savannahs, or open forests. Most such ecosystems historically included grazing animals, and livestock can serve critical ecological functions and may prevent degrading processes such as the encroachment of trees and shrubs.  

The Accountability Framework definitions can be used to determine whether a plot of land with livestock grazing should be considered agriculture or a managed natural ecosystem. In general, where planted pastures have replaced the native vegetation (ie, the main elements of the ecosystem’s composition, structure, and function), the site is considered agriculture. Where this is not the case, the site is considered a managed natural ecosystem if main elements of the ecosystem’s expected species composition, structure, and function remain in place. However, where livestock raising has led to severe and sustained degradation (including major negative effects to composition, structure, or function due to persistent overgrazing), the site is considered to have been converted. 

From a policy standpoint, these definitions help safeguard the values of natural ecosystems, while affording ranchers and herders with flexibility to manage their lands responsibly and in a way that responds to shifting environmental conditions. Livestock raising in grassy natural ecosystems is generally compatible with DCF supply chain policies as long as native plant species and vegetation structure are generally retained and severe degradation is avoided. At the same time, application of the definitions protects these livestock-raising systems against forms of conversion that can greatly reduce biodiversity and other values—for instance conversion to cropland or to plantations of non-native tree species. 

Putting the definitions into practice 

While there is wide variety in agricultural systems—including livestock raising systems—around the world, the Accountability Framework’s definitions provide a globally-applicable basis for companies to implement and monitor deforestation-free and DCF supply chain policies.

To access Accountability Framework Definitions and our guidance on how to implement them, use the links below: 

• Definitions
• Operational Guidance on Applying the Definitions Related to Deforestation and Conversion 

To learn more about how the Accountability Framework’s definitions of agricultural use are applied on the ground, read about WWF-Australia’s work to help commodity producers and buyers distinguish natural forests from agriculture in Australia here.