Introduction

Biodiversity—which underpins the structure, function, and resilience of food systems—is being eroded at an alarming rate by modern agricultural practices. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) estimates that around one million species are currently at risk of extinction, many possibly within a few decades, primarily due to changes in land use, intensive monoculture farming, and the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources.^[1] Agriculture, thus, is both a driver and a victim of biodiversity loss, paradoxically undermining its own ecological foundations.

In this context, the promotion of agrobiodiversity—the variety and variability of animals, plants, and microorganisms used directly or indirectly for food and agriculture—assumes critical importance. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO),^[2] over 90 percent of crop varieties have disappeared from farmers' fields, and just nine plant species (sugarcane, wheat, rice, maize, potatoes, sugar beet, cassava, oil palm, and soybean) account for more than 66 percent of global crop production. Global meat production, too, is predominantly derived from eight domesticated species—cattle, pigs, chickens, sheep, goats, buffalo, ducks, and turkeys—accounting for 97 percent of total output.

At the same time, the genetic diversity of wild relatives of domesticated species is diminishing, with nearly 20 percent of food-relevant wild species sourced as human food marked as threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List.^[3] Overfishing has affected approximately one-third of marine stocks, while a similar proportion of freshwater species face extinction risks. Equally concerning is the related decline of non-food species critical to ecosystem functioning, including pollinators, invertebrates, and soil micro-organisms, such as insects, birds, bats, corals, mangroves, and fungi. These species provide essential services like pollination, soil fertilisation, water and air purification, and the regulation of pests and diseases, underscoring the broader implications of biodiversity loss for food security and ecosystem resilience.

Thus, while modern monoculture practices may boost short-term yields, they sharply reduce ecological functions such as soil fertility, pest regulation, and pollination. In contrast, diversified agroecosystems sustain functionality closer to natural systems. Figure 1 illustrates the trade-offs between the ecosystem services of monocultures, biodiverse agricultural systems, and wildland environments. 

Fig. 1: Ecosystem Services Across Agricultural Intensification Gradients

Source: Smukler, “Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction”^[4]

Apart from the ecological consequences of reduced agrobiodiversity, the resultant narrowing of food systems also contributes to dietary homogenisation and micronutrient deficiencies while eroding livelihood opportunities for communities whose knowledge and practices underpin biodiversity stewardship. The impacts are particularly severe in marginal environments, where smallholder and indigenous farmers rely on heterogeneous landscapes for food, fodder, medicine, and cultural survival.^[5] Despite their vital role in conserving agrobiodiversity, these systems often remain under-supported by research and policy. Moreover, the social burdens of biodiversity erosion are unequally distributed: women, who play key roles in seed management, household nutrition, and agroecological practices, are disproportionately affected when genetic resources are lost and governance structures marginalise their contributions.

Yet biodiversity-rich production systems continue to be sidelined by agricultural policies and market incentives that prioritise input-intensive, high-yield monocultures. In the Global South, in particular, the expansion of high-input, industrial-style agriculture has accelerated in recent decades. This persistence is not simply a matter of policy bias but reflects the deeper growth-centric logic embedded in contemporary food systems.^[6] Rooted in Green Revolution paradigms and reinforced by global market integration, industrial agriculture continues to equate agricultural success with caloric output, productivity metrics, and GDP contribution rather than ecological or nutritional well-being.^[7] Even as the ill-effects are increasingly evident—through declining pollinators, soil degradation, and heightened vulnerability to climate shocks—the growth narrative sustains extractive practices that marginalise more resilient alternatives.^[8] In this context, safeguarding biodiversity is a central strategy for securing resilient, equitable, and sustainable food systems in the Global South.

The urgency of this framing becomes sharper when viewed through the lens of planetary boundaries. Biodiversity integrity is one of the nine critical thresholds for maintaining Earth system stability, with recent assessments confirming that humanity has already transgressed six boundaries, including those linked to agriculture.^[9] The erosion of biodiversity, therefore, is not a localised concern but a systemic crisis undermining global sustainability.

This brief explores the drivers and consequences of biodiversity loss in food systems of the Global South, and proposes actionable policy pathways to reconfigure food production paradigms towards ecological sustainability and food security. It emphasises the imperative of reconfiguring food systems around ‘degrowth’ principles, as articulated by scholars such as Jason Hickel,^[10] which challenge the extractive logic of industrial agriculture. Biodiverse farming systems, it argues, exemplify degrowth in practice: they prioritise ecological balance, long-term sustainability, and human well-being over perpetual output growth.

Modern Food Systems as Drivers of Agrobiodiversity Loss in the Global South

The Global South includes many of the world’s agrobiodiversity hotspots—such as the Andean highlands, the Ethiopian plateau, and South and Southeast Asia—where farming once relied on multispecies cultivation, locally adapted crops, and indigenous agroecological knowledge.^[11] The erosion of agrobiodiversity across the region is driven by a confluence of systemic pressures embedded in dominant models of agricultural intensification, policy frameworks, market structures, and globalised supply chains.

Monocultures and Deforestation

A primary driver of agrobiodiversity loss is the entrenchment of monoculture-based agriculture. Green Revolution interventions, while increasing yields of staple cereals, propagated the displacement of diversified polycultures in favour of uniform high-yielding varieties. India’s current agricultural landscape, for instance, dedicates over 75 percent of its agricultural land to rice and wheat, while the share of traditional cereals and coarse grains, such as millets, pulses, and sorghum, has declined sharply.^[12] Although overall millet yields have improved—India’s average millet yield surged to approximately 1,208 kg per hectare by 2021—this yield growth masks a steep contraction in cultivation area. Concurrently, the per capita availability of millets has fluctuated, reaching its lowest levels since 2019, at approximately 12.3 kg per person in 2021. Notably, sorghum has seen a precipitous decline of 76 percent between 1966 and 2021.

This accelerated decline in the cultivation area of traditional crop varieties, particularly between 2006 and 2016, underscores a profound shift away from diverse, climate-resilient crops towards more favoured staples. The subsequent genetic erosion has amplified vulnerability to pests, disease, and climatic volatility, thereby heightening dependence on agrochemicals and compromising long-term sustainability.

Similar patterns are being observed across other regions of the Global South. In Latin America, large-scale conversion of biodiverse landscapes into soybean monocultures and cattle pastures has profoundly transformed agri-food systems—particularly in Brazil’s Cerrado, where soy-driven agricultural expansion has shrunk native vegetation. In West Africa, cocoa-driven deforestation in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana has resulted in over 37 percent and 13 percent forest loss, respectively, within protected areas; official reports are underestimating cultivated areas by up to 40 percent in Ghana.^[13] Similarly, in Southeast Asia, the proliferation of oil palm monocultures has had severe ecological impacts: between 2001 and 2016, this sector accounted for 23 percent of the deforestation in Indonesia, equivalent to roughly 840,000 hectares of primary forest lost annually.^[14]

Agrochemical Overuse

The expansion of monocultures in the Global South is inseparable from the escalating reliance on agrochemicals, which has had profound implications for biodiversity. In India, fertiliser consumption rose from less than 1 million tonnes in the early 1960s to nearly 30 million tonnes by 2019, contributing to severe soil nutrient imbalances and declining populations of beneficial soil.^[15] Similarly, in China, nitrogen fertiliser use increased by 271 percent between 1980 and 2010, resulting in widespread eutrophication of freshwater systems and losses in aquatic biodiversity.^[16] In Sub-Saharan Africa, the adoption of high-input maize systems has intensified pesticide applications, leading to declines in pollinator diversity, particularly in bees and butterflies critical for smallholder crop production.^[17] Latin America presents parallel trends, where pesticide use has increased by 190 percent since 1990, with Brazil now ranking as the world’s largest consumer; this has been linked to amphibian population declines and contamination of biodiversity-rich wetlands.^[18] These patterns illustrate that the very agrochemical regimes underpinning yield intensification in monocultures are simultaneously undermining ecosystem services vital for long-term agricultural resilience.

Nutrition, Livelihood, and Equity Dimensions of Agrobiodiversity Loss

As monocultures, agrochemical dependence, and market homogenisation expand, eroding agrobiodiversity in the Global South, they weaken resilience to climate stress while deepening nutritional deficiencies and livelihood risks. The narrowing of food systems to a handful of staple crops has contributed to micronutrient deficiencies and the growing prevalence of diet-related non-communicable diseases. In South Asia, for example, more than 70 percent of dietary energy is derived from rice and wheat, contributing to widespread deficiencies in iron, zinc, and vitamin A.^[19] For smallholder farmers, pastoralists, and indigenous communities—who collectively manage an estimated 80 percent of the world’s remaining biodiversity hotspots—the loss of crop and livestock diversity threatens not only food security but also cultural heritage, medicinal knowledge, and livelihood opportunities.^[20]

Moreover, these impacts are unevenly distributed: women in the Global South play a central role in conserving seeds, ensuring household nutrition, and sustaining agroecological practices. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, women are responsible for 60–80 percent of food production, yet their contributions are systematically undervalued in agricultural policy, and they often lack secure land tenure and access to credit.^[21] When agrobiodiversity erodes and governance frameworks marginalise women’s voices, both biodiversity and human well-being are undermined.

Rethinking Food Production Paradigms and Strengthening Policy Levers in the Global South

These issues underscore the urgent need to reimagine prevailing food production paradigms in the Global South. A shift towards diversified, ecologically grounded production systems is imperative to strengthen ecological resilience, food sovereignty, and long-term sustainability. While critics often argue that agroecological and biodiverse farming may deliver lower yields or require higher labour inputs compared to industrial systems, empirical studies suggest otherwise. Evidence from long-term trials, such as the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial, demonstrates that diversified and organic systems can achieve yields comparable to or exceeding conventional monocultures under stress conditions such as drought, while also enhancing soil fertility, pollinator populations, and farmer livelihoods.^[22] This indicates that agroecological approaches can be both productive and sustainable, offering a viable alternative to the input-intensive pathways currently driving biodiversity loss.

In its agroecology, regenerative agriculture, and traditional knowledge frameworks, the Global South possesses both the historical depth and contemporary innovation to chart alternative pathways that balance productivity with ecological integrity.

Key pathways for agricultural transition to safeguard biodiversity include the following:

• Agroecology and regenerative agriculture: Agroecological practices, such as intercropping, organic soil restoration, and biological pest management, have proven capacity to sustain biodiversity while maintaining yields. Latin America’s Campesino a Campesino movement exemplifies the successful diffusion of such practices.^[23] Yet, transitioning away from chemical-intensive models requires capacity building. Policies must, therefore, facilitate farmer training, extension services, and peer-to-peer networks to ‘unlearn’ input-heavy farming. Challenges such as higher labour demands can be mitigated by supporting farmer cooperatives, subsidising mechanisation suited for diversified systems, and ensuring guaranteed fair prices through procurement schemes. International frameworks such as FAO’s Scaling up Agroecology Initiative (2018) can provide pathways for embedding agroecology into national food security strategies.^[24] Short-term measures could include training and pilot projects, while long-term reforms will require subsidy realignment and credit support.
• Agroforestry- and landscape-based approaches: Agroforestry offers the co-benefits of biodiversity conservation and food security, with positive results visible from Southeast Asia’s home gardens to East Africa’s farmer-managed natural regeneration.^[25] Landscape-based approaches, on the other hand, demand a greater clarity of vision. Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) models—promoted by institutions such as the World Bank, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and The Nature Conservancy—seek to reconcile competing land uses (agriculture, conservation, and development) by fostering collaboration to achieve food security, biodiversity protection, and climate resilience.^[26] Operating at larger spatial and institutional scales, they often align conservation with growth-oriented objectives. In contrast, degrowth-informed approaches emphasise ecological limits, prioritising biodiversity and local food security over expansion. Policymakers in the Global South should adapt ILM models cautiously, embedding them with degrowth principles that privilege ecological integrity. Short-term actions may include community-led agroforestry pilots, while longer-term efforts should focus on institutionalising ILM through agriculture and environment ministries.
• Diversified cropping systems and seed sovereignty: Strengthening diversified cropping systems is central to reversing homogenisation. In India, millet revival programmes under the 2023 International Year of Millets initiative highlighted how minor cereals can be reintegrated into mainstream diets while restoring resilience to drought-prone ecologies. Seed sovereignty movements, such as community seed banks in Nepal, have demonstrated that preserving indigenous germplasm enhances local adaptation while reducing dependency on multinational seed corporations.^[27]

Quick wins could include expanding awareness campaigns on dietary diversity and linking indigenous crops to school feeding schemes under frameworks like India’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme^[28] or the World Food Programme’s Home-Grown School Feeding.^[29] Structural reforms, such as participatory plant breeding programmes and the legal recognition of community seed systems, constitute long-term priorities for sustaining agrobiodiversity. These initiatives empower farmers to co-develop locally adapted crop varieties, strengthen genetic diversity, and reduce dependence on commercial seed markets.^[30]

• Traditional and indigenous knowledge systems: Traditional knowledge remains a critical reservoir for resilient agriculture. Indigenous Andean Ayllu systems and terraced farming practices, for example, exemplify community-based management of biodiversity, and have sustained soil fertility across centuries.^[31] Similarly, in Sub-Saharan Africa, pastoralist rotational grazing systems have maintained rangeland biodiversity while securing livelihoods.^[32] Recognition of such indigenous practices not only validates their epistemic value but also provides scalable models for ecologically sensitive production systems. 

Policy and institutional levers, indispensable for scaling these paradigms, are discussed in the following points.

• Public procurement policies can play a pivotal role by integrating underutilised crops, such as millets, sorghum, and indigenous pulses, into school feeding and public distribution schemes, thereby creating stable markets for biodiverse farming systems. Similarly, subsidy reforms that favour high-input monocultures could be restructured to support diversified agroecological practices, organic fertilisers, and water-efficient crops.
• Research and extension services must also undergo realignment. Agricultural research in many countries in the Global South remains disproportionately oriented towards high-yield monocultures, often neglecting traditional and climate-resilient crops. Redirecting investments towards participatory plant breeding efforts, community seed banks, and agroecological experimentation will help bridge the gap between scientific and indigenous knowledge systems. Moreover, financial instruments like credit access for smallholders practicing regenerative farming can reduce the structural bias against low-input systems.
• At the institutional level, cross-sectoral collaboration is essential, linking ministries of agriculture, environment, and health to embed biodiversity goals within broader food and livelihood security strategies. Equity- and nutrition-sensitive approaches should be mainstreamed into biodiversity strategies by incorporating diverse, nutrient-rich foods into dietary guidelines and safety net programmes, while ensuring inclusive governance that amplifies the role of women, smallholders, and indigenous communities in shaping food system transitions. By aligning policy levers with ecological imperatives, states can catalyse systemic transformation, ensuring that biodiversity conservation becomes integral to livelihood and food security, as well as climate resilience.

Fig 2: From Agrobiodiversity Erosion to Climate-Smart and Resilient Food Systems in the Global South

Source: Author’s own

Conclusion

Safeguarding biodiversity is no longer a peripheral ecological goal but a central prerequisite for resilient, equitable, and sustainable food systems. The Global South, home to some of the world’s richest agrobiodiversity, faces mounting pressures from monocultures, agrochemical dependence, and market-driven homogenisation that erode both ecological integrity and human well-being. Reversing these trajectories demands a systemic transformation that embeds biodiversity conservation into the very architecture of agricultural policy and governance.

This requires realigning subsidies and procurement schemes to favour diversified, nutrient-rich crops; redirecting research and extension services towards participatory plant breeding and agroecological innovations; and ensuring inclusive, cross-sectoral collaboration among ministries of agriculture, environment, and health. Equally, recognising the roles of women, smallholders, and indigenous communities as custodians of biodiversity is essential for equity and legitimacy in food-system transitions. By institutionalising agroecology, regenerative farming, seed sovereignty, and traditional knowledge within national food security and climate strategies, the Global South can shift from extractive growth logics to biodiversity-centred paradigms. Such a reorientation will not only strengthen climate resilience and nutrition security but also secure the cultural and ecological foundations upon which future generations depend.

---

Subhasree Ray is Head of Section - Employee Wellness, TVS Motor Company.

---

All views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author, and do not represent the Observer Research Foundation, either in its entirety or its officials and personnel.

Endnotes

^[1] “How Did IPBES Estimate ‘One Million Species at Risk of Extinction’?,” IPBES News and Events, May 22, 2019, https://www.ipbes.net/news/how-did-ipbes-estimate-1-million-species-risk-extinction-globalassessment-report.

^[2] Bélanger Julie and Dafydd Pilling, The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, FAO, 2019, https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/b355c300-72ed-4a63-be07-8295c80ec7f1.

^[3] Irene Hoffman, “The Loss of Biodiversity Threatens World Food Security,” Welthungerhilfe, May 22, 2021, https://www.welthungerhilfe.org/news/latest-articles/2021/the-loss-of-biodiversity-threatens-world-food-security.

^[4] Sean Smukler et al., “Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes,” in Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction, ed. Jane Carter Ingram, Fabrice DeClerck, Cristina Rumbaitis del Rio (New York: Springer, 2012), 17-51.

^[5] MA Altieri, “Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty,” Monthly Review 61, no. 3 (2009), https://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty/.

^[6] Scherr J. Sara and Jeffrey A McNeely, "Biodiversity Conservation and Agricultural Sustainability: Towards a New Paradigm of ‘Ecoagriculture’ Landscapes," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363, no. 1491 (2008): 477-494, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2007.2165; Avinash, “Agricultural Shifts and Technology: The Global South’s Rise and India’s Innovation Story,” RIS, March 12, 2025. https://ris.org.in/en/node/4104

^[7] “Degrowth and the Reimagining of Indian Agriculture,” Observer Research Foundation, March 24, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/research/degrowth-and-the-reimagining-of-indian-agriculture.

^[8] Favretto Nicola and Lindsay C. Stringer, "Climate Resilient Development in Vulnerable Geographies," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 29, no. 8 (2024): 90, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-024-10187-5.

^[9] Richardson Katherine et al., "Earth beyond Six of Nine Planetary Boundaries," Science Advances 9, no. 37 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458.

^[10] Jason Hickel, "Degrowth: A Theory of Radical Abundance," Real-World Economics Review 87, no. 19 (2019): 54-68, http://anzsee.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/whole871.pdf#page=54.

^[11] Samuel Pironon et al., “Toward Unifying Global Hotspots of Wild and Domesticated Biodiversity,” Plants 9, no. 9 (2020): 1128, https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9091128.

^[12] “Millet Cultivation in India: History and Trends,” India Development Review, March 24, 2023, https://idronline.org/article/agriculture/millet-cultivation-history-and-trends/.

^[13] Kalischek et al., “Satellite-based High-Resolution Maps of Cocoa Planted Area for Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana,” arXiv 2206.06119 (2022), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.06119.

^[14]Olivia Lai, “Deforestation in Southeast Asia: Causes and Solutions,” Earth.Org, March 7, 2022, https://earth.org/deforestation-in-southeast-asia/.

^[15] “Farming Systems Trial,” Rodale Institute, https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial/.

^[16] X. J. Liu et al., “Environmental Impacts of Nitrogen Emissions in China and the Role of Policy,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 378, no. 2183 (2020): 20190324, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0324.

^[17] Kumsa Tolera and Gavin Ballantyne, “Insect Pollination and Sustainable Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Journal of Pollination Ecology 615, no. 30 (2018), https://doi.org/10.26786/1920-7603(2021)615

^[18] József Popp et al., “Pesticide Productivity and Food Security: A Review,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development, no. 33 (2013): 243–255, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0105-x.

^[19] Rajendra Prasad et al., “Agronomic Biofortification of Cereal Grains with Iron and Zinc,” Advances in Agronomy 125 (2012): 55–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800137-0.00002-9.

^[20] Prema Ramachandran, "School Mid-day Meal Programme in India: Past, Present, and Future," The Indian Journal of Pediatrics 86, no. 6 (2019): 542-547, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12098-018-02845-9.

^[21] Amparo Palacios-Lopez et al., “How Much of the Labor in African Agriculture Is Provided by Women?,” Food Policy 67 (2016): 40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.017.

^[22] “Farming Systems Trial,” Rodale Institute, https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial/.

^[23] Quintero Carolina et al., “Evidence of Agroecology’s Contribution to Mitigation, Adaptation, and Resilience under Climate Variability and Change in Latin America,” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 48 (2023): 228–252, https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2023.2273835.

^[24] “Agroecology Knowledge Hub,” FAO,  https://www.fao.org/agroecology/overview/our-work/en.

^[25] Catherine W. Muthuri et al., "Agroforestry's Contribution to Livelihoods and Carbon Sequestration in East Africa: A Systematic Review," Trees, Forests and People 14 (2023): 100432, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266671932300064X.

^[26]Daniel F. McGonigleet al., "A Knowledge Brokering Framework for Integrated Landscape Management," Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4 (2020): 13, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00013/full.

^[27] “Community Seed Banks in Nepal,” Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research, and Development, 2022, https://libird.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Community-Seed-Banks-in-Nepal.pdf.

^[28] Ramachandran, "School Mid-Day Meal Programme in India: Past, Present, and Future."

^[29] Rachana Manandhar Shrestha et al., "Home-grown School Feeding: Assessment of a Pilot Program in Nepal," BMC Public Health 20, no. 1 (2020): 28, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-019-8143-9.

^[30] Niels P. Louwaars et al., "Seed Systems Resilience—An Overview," Seeds 1, no. 4 (2022): 340-356, https://www.mdpi.com/2674-1024/1/4/28.

^[31] Ishwar Prakash Sharma et al., “Indigenous Agricultural Practices: A Supreme Key to Maintaining Biodiversity,” in Microbiological Advancements for Higher Altitude Agro-Ecosystems and Sustainability (Singapore: Springer, 2020), 91–112, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1902-4_6.

^[32] Hanspeter Liniger and Rima Mekdaschi Studer, “Sustainable Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa – Guidelines to Good Practice,” TerrAfrica; World Bank, 2019, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/237401561982571988/pdf/Sustainable-Rangeland-Management-in-Sub-Saharan-Africa-Guidelines-to-Good-Practice.pdf

• Healthcare
• India
• agrobiodiversity
• agrobiodiversity hotspots
• dimensions of agrobiodiversity
• food production global south
• global south countries
• sustaining agrobiodiversity

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.