The provision of sufficient nutrients to crops, as well as the management of agricultural pests, are vital for food security and farmers’ livelihoods9,20. To reach reduction targets while minimizing trade-offs with other policy goals such as food security, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or soil conservation, policies should not aim to simply cut the provision of agricultural nutrients or pest management21 but rather to reduce excess nutrients and substitute pesticides with other available pest management options.

Such a transformation is possible while maintaining food security, but will require the identification, provision and implementation of alternatives in close collaboration with food-value chain actors — supported by changes in dietary patterns, reductions in food waste and the optimization of nutrient recycling9,22,23,24. The efficiency–substitution–redesign framework describes such a transformation pathway25. In the short term, increased efficiency and substitution can already substantially reduce pollution without compromising food security. Adapted crop management practices, novel technologies and machinery can all improve the efficiency of nutrient and pesticide applications26. For example, over the past decade, Denmark has substantially reduced pesticide risks by introducing risk-weighted pesticide taxes, which has led to the use of pesticides with lower risk14. In the medium to long term, a more fundamental transformation of farming systems will be required to reach more ambitious reduction targets. This may include organic agriculture27 or emergent approaches, such as new pesticide-free production systems on large scales28.

Finally, pesticide and nutrient pollution have for too long been dealt with as separate challenges with separate regulations and policies. Their shared drivers, loss pathways and leverage points for policies in the transformation of agricultural systems create a need for a common, systemic and collaborative approach for their management. Such a collaborative approach could deliver more meaningful and long-lasting pollution reductions, while fostering synergies and reducing potential trade-offs from separate policies7,28. This requires collective thinking and bridging between research and stakeholder communities that currently do not sufficiently communicate. There is an urgent need for scientific assessments to help to meet the biodiversity objectives of the GBF, considering heterogenous national conditions and identifying joint pathways for the reduction of nutrient and pesticide pollution. Over the longer term, global assessments such as the upcoming international nitrogen assessment and a pollution assessment by IPBES, which was requested by the CBD at COP15, could provide much of the scientific basis for future policy in this area.

pt 3 - end