1. Introduction
The impact of human activities on the planet can profoundly affect its ecosystems. Climate change, ocean acidification, permafrost thaw, habitat loss, eutrophication, storm water runoff, air pollution, and invasive species are just some of the problems they cause [
1]. Their cumulative impacts and other pressures can have serious consequences for ecosystem functions and for the provision of goods and services [
2]. All of these impacts impose costs that should be borne by polluters to reduce or repair the environmental damage caused by their activities [
3].
Agriculture is a particularly vulnerable industry because it must feed a growing population in an adverse climatic environment while trying to minimize environmental and human health impacts [
4]. However, to date, environmental impacts have been significant: food production accounts for more than one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which includes emissions from agriculture, land use change, and the supply chain (transportation, packaging, food processing, retail, cooking, and waste) [
5].
Emissions are quantified based on food production, not consumption. This means that they do not consider international trade. Half of all habitable land and 70% of the fresh water drawn are used for agriculture and cause 78% of the world’s ocean eutrophication. Similarly, livestock accounts for 94% of non-human mammal biomass [
6].
Some products have a particularly high environmental impact, such as meat and dairy products, which have the largest carbon footprint. Among agricultural products, dark chocolate, coffee, oils, rice, peanuts, and sugarcane stand out as having the highest GHG emissions [
7].
The current market for goods and services does not reflect the true value of the resources used to produce them. In other words, the market does not allocate resources efficiently because it does not consider the value of the environment. This represents a market failure and results in external costs incurred in the value chain of a product not being reflected in its final price and becoming negative externalities [
8].
The reason why environmental assets are not properly valued is mainly because they are not privately owned, so there is no defined market for their transaction, as no one would be willing to pay for something they could get for free. However, the valuation of natural resources is one of the goals of sustainable development, suggesting that the environment is not a free good and its level of use is measured by indicating the scarcity of resources [
9].
This problem of common or free goods, known as “The Tragedy of the Commons,” was first identified by Hardin [
8]. In the case of goods that have no distinct or private owner, anyone can make use of them, but no one is responsible for their care and protection, which leads to their destruction if no limits are placed on their use.
There are various methods and approaches that attempt to monetarily estimate the impact of anthropogenic activities, not only productive activities, but all activities that affect the environment [
10], with quantitative physical and mathematical models being the most objective, as they relate the reduction or loss of ecosystem services to losses in productivity, human health, biodiversity, or climate, to name a few [
11].
The environmental costs of human activities are estimated to exceed USD 6.6 trillion annually, equivalent to 11% of 2008 global gross domestic product (GDP), and are projected to reach USD 28.6 trillion, equivalent to 18% of GDP in 2050. One-third of these costs are attributed to the damage caused by the three thousand largest publicly traded companies. GHG emissions and their climate impacts represent a large and growing share of environmental costs, projected to rise from 69% (4.5 trillion USD) in 2008 to 73% in 2050 (21 trillion USD), and it would be much cheaper to prevent them than to fix them [
12].
In addition, more than 12 million people worldwide die each year from exposure to pollutants in air, water, soil, food, and materials in their homes and/or workplaces [
13]. This exposure causes health problems such as respiratory disease, heart disease, and some types of cancer. Low-income populations are more vulnerable to living in these areas, with children and pregnant women at the highest risk for pollution-related health problems [
14]. In 2019, air pollution from fine particulate matter (PM
2.5) caused 6.4 million premature deaths, 93 billion days of illness, and 8.1 trillion USD in losses, equivalent to 6.1% of GDPG [
15].
Black carbon (BC) is an air pollutant contained in PM2.5 particles that results from the inefficient and incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass and is known to have various impacts on human health and global warming, which is why it is considered one of the most important indicators of air quality [
16].
Most of the world sugarcane industry, including in Mexico, undertake in its production and industrialization process activities that have a high impact on the environment and human health. Polluted air by pollutants such as BC causes short- and long-term health effects in humans, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, respiratory mortality, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality, to name a few [
17].
In addition, they lead to soil and water depredation and degradation, air pollution, and impacts on human health and biodiversity, with effects such as global warming, among others [
18,
19,
20,
21,
22]. In this regard, there are many advances that have addressed this problem in terms of its identification and quantification.
Mexico is the sixth-largest sugarcane producer in the world [
23]. Its sugarcane cultivation area covers 15 states; San Luis Potosí is part of the northeastern sugarcane region. During the 2021–2022 harvest, the state produced 5 million 620 thousand tons of sugarcane on 103 thousand hectares [
24], making it the fourth most important agricultural product in the state in terms of harvested area and the second most important in terms of value of production [
25]. These figures show its economic and social importance, but also the extent of its impact.
This is a clear example of a case in which government intervention is needed to regulate a sector that, although of great socioeconomic importance to a large part of the population of the country, also has effects whose costs have not been internalized through public policies, as envisaged by the Coase theorem [
26].
The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the sugarcane sector on ecosystem services and to formulate an approach to their economic quantification using two focuses, using the sugarcane zone of San Luis Potosí, México as an example.
4. Discussion
Although products derived from sugarcane have diversified, cane sugar production continues to account for the majority of production. This is especially true in countries such as Mexico, which have not achieved such diversification. In any case, new products such as bioethanol are also the result of an industrialization process.
For this reason, sugarcane cultivation is inextricably linked to the associated agricultural industry. The sugarcane industry is thus a long chain of activities, many of which have a high environmental impact. Land clearing, the use of machinery and equipment in cultivation, agrochemicals, and labor with unfair pay and treatment, such as waste disposal and combustion processes, are just some of these activities.
This is due to the growing debate on the impact of the sugarcane sector on various environmental and socioeconomic aspects [
46] but additionally, competition between sugarcane and food crops for land use threatens global food production. In addition, there are the detrimental effects on biodiversity and endemic species due to land use changes [
47], as well as negative environmental externalities such as GHG emissions [
48]; alteration of physical [
49], chemical, and biological soil properties [
50], causing nutrient depletion; and acidification and eutrophication potentials [
51].
In addition, there is pressure on water resources due to changes in irrigation demand, leading to depletion and degradation of available water [
52]. Likewise, there are social impacts from affecting the health and well-being of farmers [
53], workers, and settlers in sugarcane areas, including working conditions, land rights, workers’ rights, forced labor, and child labor, to name a few [
21].
Several of these impacts on ecosystem services of the sugarcane zone and its area of influence in San Luis Potosí have been revealed by several studies [
54,
55,
56].
Research on the impacts of sugarcane cultivation on ecosystem services began in the early 1960s and has expanded greatly in the last decade [
22]. At present, there are very structured methods of estimating the costs of the impacts of the sugarcane value chain or part of it. Some focus entirely on human health impacts [
18,
30,
57], and although they address direct exposure to polluted air, they can serve as indicators of environmental impacts, especially when additional information is not available to build a more complex assessment of impact monetization.
For instance, the method for the economic assessment of air pollution due to population exposure, which was carried out using the example of black carbon in Ciudad Valles, San Luis Potosí, is based on losses in the public and/or private economy resulting from expenditures for the treatment of diseases related to exposure to polluted air and from the disability or premature death of people due to this reason.
This model can be used for pollutants for which there are direct or indirect reference values, such as those of the WHO, as long as any adjustments are made that result from the activity being evaluated and the characteristics of the place where it is carried out.
In addition, the model assumes that the cost of exposure of the population to air pollution begins when the established limits for these pollutants are exceeded, in this case those of [
31]. Thus, when a concentration below the established reference levels is considered, the model reports negative costs, and when a concentration equal to the established reference levels is considered, the model reports costs equal to zero.
This does not mean that there is a negative cost to not meeting the WHO concentration limits, nor does it mean that there are any savings. In any case, it could be argued that the model assumes that the costs to the economy are significant only when these limits are exceeded.
This suggests that the proportion of the population exposed has a greater impact on the variation in costs than changes in pollutant concentration, at least in the case of BC.
If BC accounts for 11–12% of PM2.5 particles, then if the reference value of WHO is exceeded by 1 µg/m3, i.e., at 16 µg/m3, the BC concentration would be about 1.75 µg/m3. According to the preliminary results of a field investigation conducted in the Plan de Ayala sugar mill area in Ciudad Valles, San Luis Potosi, during the 2020–2021 harvest season, concentrations equal to or above this concentration were reached in at least half of cases. It can be assumed that the sugarcane industry, at least in this part of the sugarcane area of the state, generates a cost to human health costs that should actually be borne by the owners of the sugarcane fields and mills.
It is important to keep in mind that variations in the model parameters, such as the specific parameters of each pollutant to economic variables such as the base year of the estimates, inflation, and the exchange rate, can cause large variations in the results. For example, the estimated cost increase is not derived from worsening air pollution in all cases.
On the other hand, and speaking of the second assessment approach, it is a clear example of the progress that has been made by institutions, companies, and individual researchers who have dedicated themselves to the study of the impact of activities on ecosystem services.
Clearly, industrial activities carried out in cities, have better control and registration systems, so their life cycles and their evaluation are more complete and with more specific information. However, agricultural industries such as sugarcane, which are just as important from an economic and social point of view, also have relevant advances.
For example, for the approximation made in this study for Mexico, taking the sugarcane area of San Luis Potosí as an example, parameters obtained in Brazil [
45] were used; however, it was found that the production systems of both countries are similar, so, since there was no information from national sources, it was used for this estimation.
In this case, one of the most relevant variables that cause changes in the environmental costs of sugarcane, associated with the impacts of the ecosystem services affected, is the quantity produced, since the cost is estimated based on total cost per unit produced. Thus, given that the supply areas of the four mills located in the state produce similar quantities of sugarcane, their estimated costs are also similar.
At this point, it is appropriate to highlight the need to have more information about each of the mills not only in San Luis Potosi, but throughout the country, in order to obtain better estimates of their costs, since, as mentioned above, the impact is directly related to the characteristics of the activities carried out, so that a mill that performs irrigation does not have different impacts from one that does not, nor does one that performs green harvesting from one that harvests using the double-burning method, or mills with or without filters in their chimneys, to name a few.
In addition to research on the cost of impacts, there is also research focused on reducing those impacts. One of these came from Brazil’s Laboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol (CTBE) in 2016, which used the Virtual Sugarcane Biorefinery (VSB) to create scenarios using four management practices to model mass and energy balances in different scenarios: harvesting, tillage, machine traffic, and crop rotation. It was concluded that transitioning to green harvesting, crop rotation with crops such as sunn hemp (
Crotalaria juncea L.), controlled traffic farming, and adoption of reduced tillage contributed to reducing the economic and environmental costs of sugarcane [
58].
5. Conclusions
Agrifood systems are currently facing the complex problem of meeting the demand of a growing population for safe and nutritious food under adverse climatic conditions, without neglecting the obligation to reduce their environmental footprint.
Some of these systems, such as sugarcane cultivation, have particularly strong impact, where some production and industrial practices need to be modified to enable sustainable development. This requires identifying and quantifying their impacts and finding alternatives to reduce them and provide better social and economic options for producers and workers in the sector.
Given the complexity of measuring the impacts of systems as a whole, some researchers have chosen to assess only a portion of the impacts and specialize in that part or section. One example is the assessment of air pollution and its associated health costs. Still within this topic, the study of some pollutants, such as black carbon (BC), is specialized and their results are used as indicators based on their properties.
The mathematical model resulting from the applied method evaluates the health costs of a population exposed to a pollutant in terms of costs and losses due to morbidity and early death.
In the case of Ciudad Valles, San Luis Potosí, Mexico, for a 1 µg/m3 increase in BC concentration, these costs could reach 516.8 thousand USD if the entire population were exposed to the pollutant. According to the model, costs could change more when the exposed population varies than when concentrations increase. According to preliminary results of a field research, this concentration is reached and exceeded on several days of the approximately six-month harvest each year.
On the other hand, other kind of methods and techniques have emerged that attempt to make an increasingly comprehensive assessment of the impacts of ecosystem services in their entirety for each product created and used by humans. One of the most widely used methodologies is product lifecycle assessment (LCA), which considers the impact of all stages of a product, from the inputs, production, and use to its disposal.
This method has been complemented by others, such as Environmental Cost Indicators (ECI), to determine the shadow price of products, achieving significant progress in the monetary valuation of environmental impacts.
However, not all countries are equally advanced in the development of these issues, and some, such as Mexico, are at Tier Level I or II, especially for chains such as sugarcane. In these cases, it is necessary to use information from other countries which have similar conditions in order to maintain the veracity of the parameters.
In this case, we have only obtained information on the production system, which means that the costs are underestimated because the impacts and costs of the other parts of the sugarcane industry life cycle are not considered.
The cost of the impact of seven ecosystem services was estimated at 642 thousand USD for only this part of the chain, when considering total unit cost (cost per ton), which of course means that the higher cost results directly from higher production; ignoring the differences between the industrial and the production system was necessary because we do not have this kind of specific information.
The challenge, then, is to make progress in obtaining and systematizing first-hand information that is increasingly specific and up to date, in order to improve the certainty of results and provide accurate and timely information that contributes to decision making that promotes the sustainable development of the sugarcane sector and other productive sectors in the country.
At the same time, research based on experimentation or modeling should be advanced with system changes to try to reduce the impact of this industry. It is important to keep in mind that impacts are not limited to environmental issues, but social and economic issues must also be addressed if a real shift toward a truly sustainable industry is to occur.