Stranded assets in EU+UK agriculture during food system transformations

Stranded assets in EU+UK agriculture during food system transformations | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Stranded assets in EU+UK agriculture during food system transformations Anniek Kortleve, José Mogollón, Helen Harwatt, Martin Bruckner, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5461463/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 19 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Nature Food → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract A large-scale food system transformation is essential in mitigating a host of environmental crises, including climate change. Dietary shifts, particularly a reduction in animal-sourced foods (ASFs) in high-income countries, are a key pillar. These shifts risk stranding substantial ASF-related assets. ASF-focussed assets represent 78% of EU27+UK fixed agricultural assets, with €158 billion linked to livestock and €100 billion to feed production. We estimate that reductions in ASFs of 9.5%, 60%, and 100% in dietary transitions could strand 18%, 50%, and 77% of these assets, respectively. We find that there is generally sufficient time to depreciate and phase-out assets, offering a pathway for limiting stranded assets. Investors should account for potential stranding risks in financial modelling, alongside climate-related risks. Given food producers’ high exposure to the risks of asset stranding – with potential cascading effects throughout the supply chain – integrated policy support is essential in ensuring a just, effective transition. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate-change policy Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Environmental economics Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction The global food system accounts for up to a third of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and is a major contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution 12 . Recent studies show that food system emissions alone are sufficient to breach the 1.5°C and perhaps even the 2°C warming thresholds 3 , 4 . This finding underscores the urgent need for a major food system transformation, involving dietary change, reductions in food waste, and improvements in food production 3 , 5 . Among these approaches, shifting to plant-rich diets offers the largest GHG reduction potential in higher income regions 6 , 7 . Transitioning away from animal agriculture would entail a large-scale reorganisation of the food system, with increased investments in legume cultivation, horticulture, and alternative proteins, while some assets in meat and dairy could risk being stranded 8 , 9 . Research on stranded assets has largely focussed on fossil fuel infrastructure, where stranded assets could reach US $ 1 trillion, with most losses occurring in OECD countries 10 – 12 . The scale of these potentially stranded assets often leads vested interests to resist climate policy and energy transitions 13 . Although asset stranding is anticipated across the fossil fuel industry, risks in agriculture are likely to vary depending on specific sub-sectors, practices, or geographic locations 14 . The overall magnitude of future stranded assets will depend on a range of factors including climate impacts, biodiversity loss, extreme weather events, land degradation, resource scarcity, and the proactive or reactive responses of governments, food producers, and consumers 8 , 9 , 14 – 16 . Stranded assets pose several challenges across society. For businesses, they represent investments that are difficult to sell or convert back into cash (low-liquidity) at risk of sudden devaluation. Governments may face market failures due to inadequate regulation and resulting in unaddressed externalities, while at a macroeconomic level, prolonging the use of unsustainable assets could harm productivity, economic growth, social welfare, and public finances 15 . The heavy financialization of the EU and UK food system has heightened vulnerabilities and exposure to asset stranding, especially through an over-reliance on high-carbon-emitting investments 8 . Stranded assets in the food system, which are highly exposed to devaluation and largely illiquid, pose a major threat - potentially destabilizing food supply chains through debt defaults and large upheavals in agricultural production 9 . In this study, we explore the potential for stranded assets under different levels of animal-sourced food (ASF) substitution with plant-based foods. We model reductions of 9.5%, 60%, and 100% in ASF consumption from current levels, based on ranges determined in the EAT-Lancet diet (representing Moderate, Low, and Zero ASF scenarios, see methods for details). We define stranded assets as unanticipated or premature write-offs of fixed assets, including farm buildings, machinery, equipment, and breeding livestock. Land assets are analysed separately due to the complexities involved in assessing land value for other future uses and distortions arising from land-based subsidies, tax rules, and commodity prices 8 . Results and discussion In 2020, the combined value of food system EU27 + UK land and fixed assets totalled €1.1 trillion, distributed as follows: land, permanent crops and quotas (70%); buildings (14%); machinery and equipment (12%); and breeding livestock (4%) (Fig. 1 ). In addition to these long-term assets, the food system includes faster-circulating assets or current assets (i.e., those used within a single operating cycle, typically one year) comprising non-breeding livestock, inventories, and other circulating capital, valued at €322 billion (Fig. 1 ). Total liabilities of €226 billion are excluded from fixed assets, being linked to highly liquid markets that enable risk movement 15 . Yearly investments in fixed assets total €42 billion and intangible assets equate to €26 billion (Fig. 1 ). For reference, food-related subsidies from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) totalled €51 billion (Fig. 1 ). To explore potential stranded assets under a dietary transition, we link assets to specific products, covering all animal- and plant-sourced products (i.e. animal feed) required to produce ASFs. We also split assets for producing plant-based foods for direct human consumption by asset type. Overall, 78% of the fixed assets embodied in the food system are linked to ASFs, with €158 billion allocated to livestock production and €100 billion to upstream animal feed production. It is important to highlight that approximately 40% of stranded assets from a plant-based shift would be in crop agriculture for feed, implying the need for distinguishing policies for both animal- and plant-agriculture. Among ASF assets, EU27 + UK dairy leads with €109 billion (€71 billion in livestock and €38 billion in feed production; Fig. 2 ), with 16% embodied in breeding livestock, 40% in machinery and equipment, and 44% in buildings. Feed assets are highest in the EU27 + UK dairy value chain (39% of feed assets), followed by pig meat (21%), and bovine meat (16%) (Fig. 2 ). Asset intensity, or the asset value per unit of food produced, is highest in beef, lamb and goat meat products (Fig. 2 ). A 9.5% reduction in ASF consumption in the EU27 + UK (Moderate ASF scenario) potentially strands €61 billion of fixed assets (or 20% of the total); a 60% reduction (Low ASF scenario) €168 billion (49%); and a 100% reduction (Zero ASF scenario) €255 billion (73%) (Fig. 3 ). The steepest declines are in breeding livestock assets, with reductions of 31%, 67%, and 98% in the Moderate, Low, and Zero ASF, respectively (Fig. 3 ). Buildings and machinery & equipment asset classes follow a similar trajectory, showing a 16–17%, 49%, and 73–75% decline for each scenario, respectively (Fig. 3 ). For Zero ASF, some breeding livestock assets remain, reflecting niche, multifunctional roles of farm animals in crop production (Fig. 3 ). The decline in ASF assets is slightly offset by an increase in plant-based assets, following more plant-based food consumption (SI, Fig. 1 ). This results in a 3–24% rise in buildings and a 0.5–20% rise in machinery & equipment assets, with the largest increases seen in vegetables, fruit and nuts (Fig. 3 ). Our analysis does not address whether these assets are newly developed or repurposed from ASF production systems. Future innovation in plant-based production, such as precision fermentation and vertical farming, may further influence the asset intensity of plant-based production. Land assets could see decreases of 19%, 48%, or 71% under the Moderate ASF, Low ASF or Zero ASF scenarios. This implies a land asset value reduction of €153 billion, €370 billion, or €551 billion. The sharpest declines occur in bovine and pig meat in the moderate ASF scenario; under the Low and Zero ASF scenarios, there is a steep decline in the dairy value chain. To maintain land asset values under these shifts, the average value of land across all agricultural uses in the EU + UK would need to reach approximately €5000 ha − 1 in 2020, potentially supported by revenues from environmental services, plant-based food, or other economic activities. For context, the same land currently receives approximate €300 ha − 1 year − 1 of CAP support. Non-land assets depreciate over time. These assets could be phased out following potential dietary transitions 16 . The annual depreciation applied in agriculture is generally similar or higher than in fossil infrastructure 17 . Using the current annual depreciation rates of 9% 18 , all redundant ASF assets under the Low ASF scenario would depreciate fully within 10 years, while a complete phase-out under the Zero ASF scenario would require approximately 30 years (SI, Fig. 3 ). This suggests that a systematic phase-out of ASF assets accompanied by a complete investment stop, would leave minimal residual value and limit the extent of stranded asset. However, an accelerated phase-out by 2030 could result in €99 billion stranded assets (SI, Fig. 3 ). Assets may be repurposed for alternative uses, with emerging opportunities in plant-based agriculture, such as precision farming, alternative protein production, and regenerative farming. Examples include converting chicken sheds, dairy barns, and pig barns into facilities for growing mushrooms, hemp, microgreens, and specialty vegetables and herbs 19 , 20 . Besides the building structure itself, existing infrastructure such as cooling cells, feeders, watering systems, and computer systems, can often be repurposed to support greenhouse operations 19 . Additionally, retrofitting infrastructure beyond the farm gate, particularly in the manufacturing sector, presents a capital-efficient strategy for rapidly scaling up production capacity for plant-based proteins 21 . In any of these scenarios, targeted policy intervention is essential, including support for debt and asset depreciation management, and general transition assistance for farmers. A socially just transition that addresses existing social and economic inequalities and vulnerabilities within the food system is crucial to ensure that transition costs and benefits are equitably distributed, ultimately fostering greater public support for the transition 22 – 24 . Reforms in the CAP are critical, as current agricultural subsidies may inadvertently contribute to stranded assets by incentivizing investment in specific practices or crops that are not aligned with environmental priorities, evolving market demands, and climate risks 25 . For example, livestock-specific subsidies encourage investments that risk becoming stranded if consumer preferences shift towards more plant-rich diets or if climate change makes livestock production economically inviable 8 . It is essential to rethink agricultural subsidies to prevent them from perpetuating unsustainable practices that increase the risk of stranded assets 15 . From a climate perspective, failure to transition away from ASF production and consumption could exacerbate asset stranding risks as climate impacts on agriculture intensify. Both a faster decarbonization and more severe impacts of climate change could drive higher levels of asset stranding, increasing the chances of economic, social, and political repercussions 14 . Additionally, low-animal welfare practices, combined with climate risks, may increase the likelihood of zoonotic and epizootic events within livestock population 26 . While stronger regulatory responses to animal welfare and biosecurity concerns could help mitigate disease risks, they would also accelerate asset stranding, especially in intensive, high-risk animal agriculture systems 27 . Navigating these trade-offs involves evaluating the immediate economic impacts of regulation against longer-term costs of increased disease risk and instability. Investors currently favour on-farm climate solutions, such as regenerative agriculture and feed additives, over demand-side measures like promoting plant-based diets 28 . This emphasizes the need for policy interventions that encourage transitions toward more plant-based diets, for instance, through measures supporting livestock reductions 29 and promoting plant-based alternatives 3031 . Given the uncertainties surrounding the efficacy of on-farm livestock solutions and their limited capacity to address broader environmental harms 6 , 32 , investors should account for stranded asset risk in their financial models to better anticipate the economic consequences of inaction. Despite uncertainties surrounding these risks, the inertia of the climate system guarantees that, even if GHG emissions were halted immediately, the risks of asset stranding in the food system would continue to grow 14 . Climate change is likely already contributing to agricultural asset stranding by driving extreme weather, altering water supplies, and negatively impacting crop yields and the growth of dairy, meat, and fish stocks 14 , 16 . Adaptive food governance strategies are therefore essential, including diversification of agricultural production, investment in sustainable farming practices, and transition support for farmers adapting to new market conditions 8 . While these strategies can mitigate some physical risks from climate change, they are unlikely to address all potential risks 14 . The interconnected nature of the food system, characterized by strong investment synergies across different asset types, means that stranded asset risks can propagate through the supply chain 15 . The stranding of physical assets such as farm buildings, irrigation systems, and crop fields can have cascading impacts across food supply chains, affecting other assets such as business networks and cooperatives that rely on consistent agricultural production. Declines in production can destabilize community structures that support agriculture, placing local knowledge and human capital at risk. This interconnected vulnerability underscores the critical need for risk management to reduce the ripple effects of asset stranding across food systems, economies, and communities 15 . The effects of stranded agricultural assets extend beyond primary production, leading to cascading impacts across multiple sectosr 8 , 16 . For example, food processing facilities producing animal by-products such as leather and casein may experience supply constraints 31 , while logistics companies could face underutilization of refrigerated trucks and live animal transport infrastructure. Retailers may need to repurpose meat-focussed display areas, and ASF focussed financial institutes could see declines in the collateral value of loans tied to livestock assets. The pharmaceutical industry, heavily reliant on animal agriculture for antibiotic sales 33 , would experience reduced demand, affecting upstream supply chains, research, and investments. In regions where tourism is closely linked to animal agriculture, revenue losses could result in additional asset stranding. As the food system transitions toward plant-sourced foods, assets will shift, but their location, concentration, and size will be naturally very different. Our stranded asset calculations may underestimate the broader, cascading risks in infrastructure beyond direct food production, such as transportation, storage facilities, electrification, and other on-farm resources. Additionally, our analysis does not account for asset stranding outside the EU and UK, even though global markers are deeply interconnected. Farmers remain particularly vulnerable in this transition due to their limited profitability and high degree of lock-in from long-term investments 23 , 34 . In the current food system, where economic power is largely concentrated among manufacturers and retailers, farmers’ adaptive capacity to dietary shifts is restricted. This reinforces the need for broad governmental action to reorganise support mechanisms and ensure a just transition through targeted agricultural policies 22 – 24 , 31 , 34 . Methods Agricultural assets are classified into natural, physical, financial, human and social assets. Our analysis focuses on the potential stranding of fixed assets: buildings, machinery & equipment, and breeding livestock (see SI Table 1 for details). Financial assets, including short, and medium to long-term loans, are linked to highly liquid markets which enables risks to be moved 15 . Intangible human and social assets, such as know-how, management practices, and community networks, are less vulnerable due to their association with diverse activities 15 and when monetized, represent less than 2% of the total asset valuation. We use the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input-Output (FABIO) database (version 2.0), which provides of a global series of physical input-output tables for agriculture and food 35 . FABIO v2.0 covers 186 countries and 1 Rest of the World region ( n r ) , 123 commodities ( n s ), and six final demand categories ( n y ) for 2010–2021. We integrate FABIO with data for 14 farm types ( n f ) across EU27 + UK countries provided by the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) data 18 . Asset values for these farm types are proportionally allocated to the n s food items using each country’s total output per commodity and a concordance matrix (SI: table 2). Most assets were successfully allocated (land 99.6%, buildings 99.8%, machinery & equipment 99.6%, and breeding livestock 100%). It should be noted that FADN does not cover fish and seafood assets. FADN data, based on annual EU member state surveys, represent approximately 3.7 million farms across EU27 + UK in 2020. We performed a contribution analysis to evaluate the embodied assets across the EU27 + UK food supply chain (i.e., agricultural assets accumulated through each supply chain stage). This analysis follows the equation \(\:{R}^{c}=\widehat{b{\prime\:}L}Y\) where \(\:{R}^{c}\) ( n r *n s x n r ) represents the matrix of embodied impacts for each commodity-region pair. Here, \(\:b{\prime\:}\) is a row vector asset intensity (in € t − 1 ) calculated by dividing the asset flow \(\:e\) by the total output \(\:x\) , as \(\:{b}^{{\prime\:}}=e{\prime\:}{\widehat{x}}^{-1}\) . The Leontief inverse \(\:L\) is given by \(\:L={(I-A)}^{-1}\) 1, where \(\:I\) is the identity matrix (a matrix with ones on the main diagonal), and \(\:A\) represents the matrix of technical coefficients, all three with the dimensions n r *n s x n r *n s . The matrix \(\:Y\) denotes the final demand ( n r *n s x n r * n y ). To assess potentially stranded assets following a transition to more plant-rich diets, we model the EAT Lancet diet for high- and middle-income countries, considering impacts on EU food consumption, imports and exports. We model three scenarios of ASF intake aligned with the macronutrient intake ranges recommended in the EAT Lancet reference diet 5 (SI: Fig. 1 ). Moderate ASF scenario , using the upper limit of the ASF intake range (including dairy, beef and lamb, pork, poultry, lard, tallow, eggs and fish), and the lower limit of the range recommended for legumes (including dry beans, lentils, and peas, soy food, and peanuts) tree nuts, and vegetable oils (including palm and unsaturated oils) intake. Low ASF scenario , applying the midpoint for all ASFs, legumes, tree nuts, and vegetable oils. Zero ASF scenario , excluding ASF entirely and using the upper range for legumes, tree nuts, and vegetable oils. All dietary scenarios are scaled to an isocaloric intake of 2500 kcal person − 1 day − 1 , with other plant-based foods adjusted proportionally as needed. Mass-energy conversions were based on FAO Food Balance Sheets 36 . Food waste is factored into both baseline and the dietary scenarios using fixed food-specific fractions 37 . Items not considered by the EAT Lancet recommendation (“Alcohol” and “Other”) are excluded (see SI, Fig. 1 ). A schematic overview of these methods is provided in SI Fig. 4. To assess depreciation pathways, we derived the mean depreciation rate from the FADN database using total depreciation allocated to 2020 and depreciable asset values (including fixed assets, permanent crops, and quotas) 18 . All data processing and analysis was carried out using Python (version 3.8.8) and RStudio version (2022.07.2). Declarations Data Availability All data used in this study are available in open-access databases. The FABIO database is available via Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2577067) and the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) Public Database is available via the agridata platform of the European Commission (https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/). Code Availability Example code of the performed analyses is available on FABIO’s GitHub repository (https://github.com/fineprint-global/fabio). Acknowledgements A.J.K. was funded by the KR Foundation. P.B. was supported by a British Academy Global Professorship award. Author contributions Statement All authors provided inputs in the final manuscript. A.J.K., J.M.M., and P.B. designed the study. A.J.K. collected the data and performed the analysis with help of J.M.M., P.B., H.H. and M.B. M.B. contributed by interpreting and utilizing the FABIO database. B.L. constructed the dietary scenarios. A.J.K. led the writing with major contributions by P.B., J.M.M., H.H, and M.B. Competing interests Statement The authors declare no competing interests. References Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2, 198–209 (2021). Ellis, E. C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. & Ramankutty, N. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19, 589–606 (2010). Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science (1979) 370, 705–708 (2020). Ivanovich, C. C., Sun, T., Gordon, D. R. & Ocko, I. B. Future warming from global food consumption. Nat Clim Chang 13, 297–302 (2023). Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019). Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science (1979) 360, 987–992 (2018). Sun, Z. et al. Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nat Food 3, 29–37 (2022). Marsden, T., Moragues Faus, A. & Sonnino, R. Reproducing vulnerabilities in agri-food systems: Tracing the links between governance, financialization, and vulnerability in Europe post 2007–2008. Journal of Agrarian Change 19, 82–100 (2019). Tingey-Holyoak, J., Cooper, B., Crase, L. & Pisaniello, J. A framework for supporting climate-exposed asset decision-making in agriculture. Land use policy 137, (2024). Welsby, D., Price, J., Pye, S. & Ekins, P. Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5°C world. Nature 597, 230–234 (2021). Mercure, J.-F. et al. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets. Nat Clim Chang 8, 588–593 (2018). Semieniuk, G. et al. Stranded fossil-fuel assets translate to major losses for investors in advanced economies. Nat Clim Chang 12, 532–538 (2022). von Dulong, A. Concentration of asset owners exposed to power sector stranded assets may trigger climate policy resistance. Nat Commun 14, 6442 (2023). Rautner, M., Tomlinson, S. & Hoare, A. Managing the Risk of Stranded Assets in Agriculture and Forestry . (2016). Caldecott, B., Howarth, N. & Mcsharry, P. Stranded Assets in Agriculture: Protecting Value from Environment-Related Risks . (2013). Reddy, V. R., Anbumozhi, V. & Devi, M. J. Stranded Assets and Protecting Value of Food Value Chain from Disasters and Other External Shocks. in Supply Chain Resilience: Reducing Vulnerability to Economic Shocks, Financial Crises, and Natural Disasters (eds. Anbumozhi, V., Kimura, F. & Thangavelu, S. M.) 281–306 (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2020). doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-2870-5 . Kennedy, C. A., Sers, M. & Westphal, M. I. Avoiding investment in fossil fuel assets. J Ind Ecol 27, 1184–1196 (2023). European Comission. The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN). https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/FADNPublicDatabase/FADNPublicDatabase.html . Transfarmation Project: A Farmer-Led Movement for a Better Food System. https://thetransfarmationproject.org . The Little Mushroom Company. https://thelittlemushroomcompany.co.uk . Bess, A. et al. Plant-Based Meat Manufacturing Capacity and Pathways for Expansion . (2023). Just Rural Transition. Principles for Just Food System Transitions Envisioning a More Equitable and Sustainable Future-and an Inclusive Path to Achieving It . (2023). Kaljonen, M. et al. Justice in transitions: Widening considerations of justice in dietary transition. Environ Innov Soc Transit 40, 474–485 (2021). Verkuijl, C. et al. A Just Transition in the Meat Sector: Why, Who and How? https://www.sei.org/publications/just-transition-meat-sector / (2022) doi: 10.51414/sei2022.046 . Kortleve, A. J., Mogollón, J. M., Harwatt, H. & Behrens, P. Over 80% of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy supports emissions-intensive animal products. Nat Food 5, 288–292 (2024). CDC. Current H5N1 Bird Flu Situation in Dairy Cows. https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/mammals.html . Wright, H. & Stein, H. Why Animal Welfare Is an Investment Risk. FAIRR Initiative. (2023). Raven, J., et al. Shifting Diets: A Market Opportunity to Abate Climate , Nature, and Public Health Risks. Protein Diversification Engagement & Novel Food Policy Update. (2024). Helen Harwatt, Matthew N Hayek, Paul Behrens & William J Ripple. Options for a Paris-Compliant Livestock Sector. Timeframes, Targets and Trajectories for Livestock Sector Emissions from a Survey of Climate Scientists. Ministry of Food, A. and F. of D. Danish Action Plan for Plant-Based Foods . (2023). Planet Tracker. ROADMAP FINANCIAL MARKETS FOR TRANSFORMING THE Global Food System: A Guide for the Financial Sector . Arndt, C. et al. Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5°C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, (2022). The European Medicines Agency (EMA). Veterinary Antimicrobials in Europe’s Environment: A One Health Perspective . https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/veterinary-antimicrobials-in-europes-environment (2024). Glennie, C. & Alkon, A. H. Food justice: Cultivating the field. Environmental Research Letters vol. 13 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4b2 (2018). Bruckner, M. et al. FABIO - The Construction of the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input-Output Model. Environ Sci Technol 53, 11302–11312 (2019). FAOSTAT. Food Balances (2010-). https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS . Coudard, A., Corbin, E., de Koning, J., Tukker, A. & Mogollón, J. M. Global water and energy losses from consumer avoidable food waste. J Clean Prod 326, (2021). Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files SIStrandedassetsinEUUKagricultureduringfoodsystemtransformations20241115.docx Supplementary information, 1 SIStrandedassetsinEUUKagricultureduringfoodsystemtransformations20241112.xlsx Supplementary information, 2 Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 19 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Nature Food → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5461463","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":404152814,"identity":"daa1429b-07ac-44f2-a552-f053ccb6eacb","order_by":0,"name":"Anniek Kortleve","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4617-2281","institution":"Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anniek","middleName":"","lastName":"Kortleve","suffix":""},{"id":404152815,"identity":"4a16a481-9f3b-4f2e-a140-f01233a5f318","order_by":1,"name":"José Mogollón","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7110-5470","institution":"Leiden University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"José","middleName":"","lastName":"Mogollón","suffix":""},{"id":404152816,"identity":"5c72cac9-4093-43c8-b6b3-60c6bb33cbbd","order_by":2,"name":"Helen Harwatt","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4390-9727","institution":"Chatham House","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Helen","middleName":"","lastName":"Harwatt","suffix":""},{"id":404152817,"identity":"e2f0a62c-814a-43c9-88e3-48e4a3e4c4e4","order_by":3,"name":"Martin Bruckner","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1405-7951","institution":"Vienna University of Economics and Business","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Martin","middleName":"","lastName":"Bruckner","suffix":""},{"id":404152818,"identity":"bec5bb4f-3aae-48f8-a79a-ee434ed5e5f1","order_by":4,"name":"Baoxiao Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Baoxiao","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":404152819,"identity":"a6b466b4-0a30-4c7b-b7b0-200d04059bd4","order_by":5,"name":"Paul Behrens","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2935-4799","institution":"Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands; Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Paul","middleName":"","lastName":"Behrens","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-11-15 15:20:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5461463/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5461463/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01283-z","type":"published","date":"2026-01-19T05:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":74435143,"identity":"44211c82-25bc-4da1-8945-40d49824282e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-22 09:22:18","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":246139,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOverview of asset types within the EU7+UK food system in 2020. Land assets include land value, permanent crops, and quotas. Fixed assets are divided into buildings, machinery \u0026amp; equipment, and breeding-livestock. Current assets include breeding livestock, inventories (stocks of products owned by the farm for input use or sale, whether produced or purchased), and other current assets (cash, business receivables, and assets easily sold or payable within a year). Total liabilities, representing farm debt, include short-term and long- to medium-term loans. Intangible assets are either tradable (quotas, rights) or non-tradable (software, licences). CAP subsidies include the full CAP budget for the EU27+UK. For assets within the full agricultural system (food and non-food use), see SI Fig. 2.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig111102024.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5461463/v1/7cc75aad85b46e4f9938a464.png"},{"id":74435147,"identity":"b077acb1-c74b-4122-a4bf-d9cf7e10c7fa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-22 09:22:18","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":274563,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAllocation of animal, feed, and plant assets across food production by asset type. The upper panel shows total fixed assets for the EU27+UK in 2020, and the lower depicts average asset intensity (asset value per unit of food produced).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig211102024.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5461463/v1/de2ce0a594bb8750e43d2f16.png"},{"id":74435149,"identity":"2af3c235-72bd-4f7b-b22f-964a967ad56d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-22 09:22:19","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":286694,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEmbodied fixed assets (total, buildings, machinery \u0026amp; equipment, and breeding livestock) under EAT Lancet dietary scenarios (Moderate, Low, and Zero ASF). “Other ASF” includes animals fats, offal, and other meat.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig311102024.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5461463/v1/504dd078e959c3cf9945e5be.png"},{"id":100662326,"identity":"6f9f3cdd-5b32-47ef-9301-cbece3c909e1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 08:59:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1127630,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5461463/v1/b6187103-8336-406a-a7cc-7fbea301d524.pdf"},{"id":74435148,"identity":"a1d8d52a-9ffd-4111-9c41-7e029ba6159f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-22 09:22:18","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":569493,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Supplementary information, 1","description":"","filename":"SIStrandedassetsinEUUKagricultureduringfoodsystemtransformations20241115.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5461463/v1/b946bec5b8389e78b91415fd.docx"},{"id":74435144,"identity":"44657554-697a-4219-8e3b-e8393a796b17","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-22 09:22:18","extension":"xlsx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":16965,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Supplementary information, 2","description":"","filename":"SIStrandedassetsinEUUKagricultureduringfoodsystemtransformations20241112.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5461463/v1/cb1cd9c3fe72c6ed17893eb7.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"Stranded assets in EU+UK agriculture during food system transformations","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe global food system accounts for up to a third of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and is a major contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Recent studies show that food system emissions alone are sufficient to breach the 1.5\u0026deg;C and perhaps even the 2\u0026deg;C warming thresholds\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This finding underscores the urgent need for a major food system transformation, involving dietary change, reductions in food waste, and improvements in food production\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Among these approaches, shifting to plant-rich diets offers the largest GHG reduction potential in higher income regions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Transitioning away from animal agriculture would entail a large-scale reorganisation of the food system, with increased investments in legume cultivation, horticulture, and alternative proteins, while some assets in meat and dairy could risk being stranded\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on stranded assets has largely focussed on fossil fuel infrastructure, where stranded assets could reach US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1 trillion, with most losses occurring in OECD countries\u003csup\u003e \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR11\" citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e. The scale of these potentially stranded assets often leads vested interests to resist climate policy and energy transitions\u003csup\u003e \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e. Although asset stranding is anticipated across the fossil fuel industry, risks in agriculture are likely to vary depending on specific sub-sectors, practices, or geographic locations\u003csup\u003e \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e. The overall magnitude of future stranded assets will depend on a range of factors including climate impacts, biodiversity loss, extreme weather events, land degradation, resource scarcity, and the proactive or reactive responses of governments, food producers, and consumers\u003csup\u003e \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStranded assets pose several challenges across society. For businesses, they represent investments that are difficult to sell or convert back into cash (low-liquidity) at risk of sudden devaluation. Governments may face market failures due to inadequate regulation and resulting in unaddressed externalities, while at a macroeconomic level, prolonging the use of unsustainable assets could harm productivity, economic growth, social welfare, and public finances\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The heavy financialization of the EU and UK food system has heightened vulnerabilities and exposure to asset stranding, especially through an over-reliance on high-carbon-emitting investments\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Stranded assets in the food system, which are highly exposed to devaluation and largely illiquid, pose a major threat - potentially destabilizing food supply chains through debt defaults and large upheavals in agricultural production\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, we explore the potential for stranded assets under different levels of animal-sourced food (ASF) substitution with plant-based foods. We model reductions of 9.5%, 60%, and 100% in ASF consumption from current levels, based on ranges determined in the EAT-Lancet diet (representing Moderate, Low, and Zero ASF scenarios, see methods for details). We define stranded assets as unanticipated or premature write-offs of fixed assets, including farm buildings, machinery, equipment, and breeding livestock. Land assets are analysed separately due to the complexities involved in assessing land value for other future uses and distortions arising from land-based subsidies, tax rules, and commodity prices\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn 2020, the combined value of food system EU27 + UK land and fixed assets totalled €1.1 trillion, distributed as follows: land, permanent crops and quotas (70%); buildings (14%); machinery and equipment (12%); and breeding livestock (4%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to these long-term assets, the food system includes faster-circulating assets or current assets (i.e., those used within a single operating cycle, typically one year) comprising non-breeding livestock, inventories, and other circulating capital, valued at €322\u0026nbsp;billion (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Total liabilities of €226\u0026nbsp;billion are excluded from fixed assets, being linked to highly liquid markets that enable risk movement\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Yearly investments in fixed assets total €42\u0026nbsp;billion and intangible assets equate to €26\u0026nbsp;billion (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). For reference, food-related subsidies from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) totalled €51\u0026nbsp;billion (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo explore potential stranded assets under a dietary transition, we link assets to specific products, covering all animal- and plant-sourced products (i.e. animal feed) required to produce ASFs. We also split assets for producing plant-based foods for direct human consumption by asset type. Overall, 78% of the fixed assets embodied in the food system are linked to ASFs, with €158\u0026nbsp;billion allocated to livestock production and €100\u0026nbsp;billion to upstream animal feed production. It is important to highlight that approximately 40% of stranded assets from a plant-based shift would be in crop agriculture for feed, implying the need for distinguishing policies for both animal- and plant-agriculture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong ASF assets, EU27 + UK dairy leads with €109\u0026nbsp;billion (€71\u0026nbsp;billion in livestock and €38\u0026nbsp;billion in feed production; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), with 16% embodied in breeding livestock, 40% in machinery and equipment, and 44% in buildings. Feed assets are highest in the EU27 + UK dairy value chain (39% of feed assets), followed by pig meat (21%), and bovine meat (16%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Asset intensity, or the asset value per unit of food produced, is highest in beef, lamb and goat meat products (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 9.5% reduction in ASF consumption in the EU27 + UK (Moderate ASF scenario) potentially strands €61\u0026nbsp;billion of fixed assets (or 20% of the total); a 60% reduction (Low ASF scenario) €168\u0026nbsp;billion (49%); and a 100% reduction (Zero ASF scenario) €255\u0026nbsp;billion (73%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The steepest declines are in breeding livestock assets, with reductions of 31%, 67%, and 98% in the Moderate, Low, and Zero ASF, respectively (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Buildings and machinery \u0026amp; equipment asset classes follow a similar trajectory, showing a 16–17%, 49%, and 73–75% decline for each scenario, respectively (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). For Zero ASF, some breeding livestock assets remain, reflecting niche, multifunctional roles of farm animals in crop production (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe decline in ASF assets is slightly offset by an increase in plant-based assets, following more plant-based food consumption (SI, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). This results in a 3–24% rise in buildings and a 0.5–20% rise in machinery \u0026amp; equipment assets, with the largest increases seen in vegetables, fruit and nuts (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Our analysis does not address whether these assets are newly developed or repurposed from ASF production systems. Future innovation in plant-based production, such as precision fermentation and vertical farming, may further influence the asset intensity of plant-based production.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLand assets could see decreases of 19%, 48%, or 71% under the Moderate ASF, Low ASF or Zero ASF scenarios. This implies a land asset value reduction of €153\u0026nbsp;billion, €370\u0026nbsp;billion, or €551\u0026nbsp;billion. The sharpest declines occur in bovine and pig meat in the moderate ASF scenario; under the Low and Zero ASF scenarios, there is a steep decline in the dairy value chain. To maintain land asset values under these shifts, the average value of land across all agricultural uses in the EU + UK would need to reach approximately €5000 ha\u003csup\u003e− 1\u003c/sup\u003e in 2020, potentially supported by revenues from environmental services, plant-based food, or other economic activities. For context, the same land currently receives approximate €300 ha\u003csup\u003e− 1\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003csup\u003e− 1\u003c/sup\u003e of CAP support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-land assets depreciate over time. These assets could be phased out following potential dietary transitions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The annual depreciation applied in agriculture is generally similar or higher than in fossil infrastructure\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Using the current annual depreciation rates of 9%\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e, all redundant ASF assets under the Low ASF scenario would depreciate fully within 10 years, while a complete phase-out under the Zero ASF scenario would require approximately 30 years (SI, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that a systematic phase-out of ASF assets accompanied by a complete investment stop, would leave minimal residual value and limit the extent of stranded asset. However, an accelerated phase-out by 2030 could result in €99\u0026nbsp;billion stranded assets (SI, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssets may be repurposed for alternative uses, with emerging opportunities in plant-based agriculture, such as precision farming, alternative protein production, and regenerative farming. Examples include converting chicken sheds, dairy barns, and pig barns into facilities for growing mushrooms, hemp, microgreens, and specialty vegetables and herbs\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Besides the building structure itself, existing infrastructure such as cooling cells, feeders, watering systems, and computer systems, can often be repurposed to support greenhouse operations\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, retrofitting infrastructure beyond the farm gate, particularly in the manufacturing sector, presents a capital-efficient strategy for rapidly scaling up production capacity for plant-based proteins\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn any of these scenarios, targeted policy intervention is essential, including support for debt and asset depreciation management, and general transition assistance for farmers. A socially just transition that addresses existing social and economic inequalities and vulnerabilities within the food system is crucial to ensure that transition costs and benefits are equitably distributed, ultimately fostering greater public support for the transition\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR23\" citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Reforms in the CAP are critical, as current agricultural subsidies may inadvertently contribute to stranded assets by incentivizing investment in specific practices or crops that are not aligned with environmental priorities, evolving market demands, and climate risks\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. For example, livestock-specific subsidies encourage investments that risk becoming stranded if consumer preferences shift towards more plant-rich diets or if climate change makes livestock production economically inviable\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It is essential to rethink agricultural subsidies to prevent them from perpetuating unsustainable practices that increase the risk of stranded assets\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a climate perspective, failure to transition away from ASF production and consumption could exacerbate asset stranding risks as climate impacts on agriculture intensify. Both a faster decarbonization and more severe impacts of climate change could drive higher levels of asset stranding, increasing the chances of economic, social, and political repercussions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, low-animal welfare practices, combined with climate risks, may increase the likelihood of zoonotic and epizootic events within livestock population\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While stronger regulatory responses to animal welfare and biosecurity concerns could help mitigate disease risks, they would also accelerate asset stranding, especially in intensive, high-risk animal agriculture systems\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Navigating these trade-offs involves evaluating the immediate economic impacts of regulation against longer-term costs of increased disease risk and instability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestors currently favour on-farm climate solutions, such as regenerative agriculture and feed additives, over demand-side measures like promoting plant-based diets \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This emphasizes the need for policy interventions that encourage transitions toward more plant-based diets, for instance, through measures supporting livestock reductions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and promoting plant-based alternatives\u003csup\u003e3031\u003c/sup\u003e. Given the uncertainties surrounding the efficacy of on-farm livestock solutions and their limited capacity to address broader environmental harms\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, investors should account for stranded asset risk in their financial models to better anticipate the economic consequences of inaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite uncertainties surrounding these risks, the inertia of the climate system guarantees that, even if GHG emissions were halted immediately, the risks of asset stranding in the food system would continue to grow\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Climate change is likely already contributing to agricultural asset stranding by driving extreme weather, altering water supplies, and negatively impacting crop yields and the growth of dairy, meat, and fish stocks \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Adaptive food governance strategies are therefore essential, including diversification of agricultural production, investment in sustainable farming practices, and transition support for farmers adapting to new market conditions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While these strategies can mitigate some physical risks from climate change, they are unlikely to address all potential risks\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interconnected nature of the food system, characterized by strong investment synergies across different asset types, means that stranded asset risks can propagate through the supply chain\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The stranding of physical assets such as farm buildings, irrigation systems, and crop fields can have cascading impacts across food supply chains, affecting other assets such as business networks and cooperatives that rely on consistent agricultural production. Declines in production can destabilize community structures that support agriculture, placing local knowledge and human capital at risk. This interconnected vulnerability underscores the critical need for risk management to reduce the ripple effects of asset stranding across food systems, economies, and communities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effects of stranded agricultural assets extend beyond primary production, leading to cascading impacts across multiple sectosr\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. For example, food processing facilities producing animal by-products such as leather and casein may experience supply constraints\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, while logistics companies could face underutilization of refrigerated trucks and live animal transport infrastructure. Retailers may need to repurpose meat-focussed display areas, and ASF focussed financial institutes could see declines in the collateral value of loans tied to livestock assets. The pharmaceutical industry, heavily reliant on animal agriculture for antibiotic sales\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, would experience reduced demand, affecting upstream supply chains, research, and investments. In regions where tourism is closely linked to animal agriculture, revenue losses could result in additional asset stranding. As the food system transitions toward plant-sourced foods, assets will shift, but their location, concentration, and size will be naturally very different.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur stranded asset calculations may underestimate the broader, cascading risks in infrastructure beyond direct food production, such as transportation, storage facilities, electrification, and other on-farm resources. Additionally, our analysis does not account for asset stranding outside the EU and UK, even though global markers are deeply interconnected. Farmers remain particularly vulnerable in this transition due to their limited profitability and high degree of lock-in from long-term investments\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In the current food system, where economic power is largely concentrated among manufacturers and retailers, farmers’ adaptive capacity to dietary shifts is restricted. This reinforces the need for broad governmental action to reorganise support mechanisms and ensure a just transition through targeted agricultural policies\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR23\" citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eAgricultural assets are classified into natural, physical, financial, human and social assets. Our analysis focuses on the potential stranding of fixed assets: buildings, machinery \u0026amp; equipment, and breeding livestock (see SI Table\u0026nbsp;1 for details). Financial assets, including short, and medium to long-term loans, are linked to highly liquid markets which enables risks to be moved\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Intangible human and social assets, such as know-how, management practices, and community networks, are less vulnerable due to their association with diverse activities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and when monetized, represent less than 2% of the total asset valuation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe use the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input-Output (FABIO) database (version 2.0), which provides of a global series of physical input-output tables for agriculture and food\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. FABIO v2.0 covers 186 countries and 1 Rest of the World region (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e, 123 commodities (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e), and six final demand categories (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003ey\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e for 2010–2021. We integrate FABIO with data for 14 farm types (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e) across EU27 + UK countries provided by the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) data\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Asset values for these farm types are proportionally allocated to the \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e food items using each country’s total output per commodity and a concordance matrix (SI: table 2). Most assets were successfully allocated (land 99.6%, buildings 99.8%, machinery \u0026amp; equipment 99.6%, and breeding livestock 100%). It should be noted that FADN does not cover fish and seafood assets. FADN data, based on annual EU member state surveys, represent approximately 3.7\u0026nbsp;million farms across EU27 + UK in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe performed a contribution analysis to evaluate the embodied assets across the EU27 + UK food supply chain (i.e., agricultural assets accumulated through each supply chain stage). This analysis follows the equation \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{R}^{c}=\\widehat{b{\\prime\\:}L}Y\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e where \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{R}^{c}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e*n\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003ex n\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e) represents the matrix of embodied impacts for each commodity-region pair. Here, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:b{\\prime\\:}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is a row vector asset intensity (in € t\u003csup\u003e−\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e) calculated by dividing the asset flow \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:e\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e by the total output \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:x\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, as \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{b}^{{\\prime\\:}}=e{\\prime\\:}{\\widehat{x}}^{-1}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. The Leontief inverse \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:L\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is given by \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:L={(I-A)}^{-1}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e1, where \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:I\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is the identity matrix (a matrix with ones on the main diagonal), and \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:A\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e represents the matrix of technical coefficients, all three with the dimensions \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e*n\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e x \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e*n\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The matrix \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:Y\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e denotes the final demand (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e*n\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e x \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e*\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003ey\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo assess potentially stranded assets following a transition to more plant-rich diets, we model the EAT Lancet diet for high- and middle-income countries, considering impacts on EU food consumption, imports and exports. We model three scenarios of ASF intake aligned with the macronutrient intake ranges recommended in the EAT Lancet reference diet\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (SI: Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eModerate ASF scenario\u003c/b\u003e, using the upper limit of the ASF intake range (including dairy, beef and lamb, pork, poultry, lard, tallow, eggs and fish), and the lower limit of the range recommended for legumes (including dry beans, lentils, and peas, soy food, and peanuts) tree nuts, and vegetable oils (including palm and unsaturated oils) intake.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLow ASF scenario\u003c/b\u003e, applying the midpoint for all ASFs, legumes, tree nuts, and vegetable oils.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eZero ASF scenario\u003c/b\u003e, excluding ASF entirely and using the upper range for legumes, tree nuts, and vegetable oils.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll dietary scenarios are scaled to an isocaloric intake of 2500 kcal person\u003csup\u003e− 1\u003c/sup\u003e day\u003csup\u003e− 1\u003c/sup\u003e, with other plant-based foods adjusted proportionally as needed. Mass-energy conversions were based on FAO Food Balance Sheets\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Food waste is factored into both baseline and the dietary scenarios using fixed food-specific fractions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Items not considered by the EAT Lancet recommendation (“Alcohol” and “Other”) are excluded (see SI, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). A schematic overview of these methods is provided in SI Fig.\u0026nbsp;4.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo assess depreciation pathways, we derived the mean depreciation rate from the FADN database using total depreciation allocated to 2020 and depreciable asset values (including fixed assets, permanent crops, and quotas)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. All data processing and analysis was carried out using Python (version 3.8.8) and RStudio version (2022.07.2).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data used in this study are available in open-access databases. The FABIO database is available via Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2577067) and the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) Public Database is available via the agridata platform of the European Commission (https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample code of the performed analyses is available on FABIO\u0026rsquo;s GitHub repository (https://github.com/fineprint-global/fabio).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA.J.K. was funded by the KR Foundation. P.B. was supported by a British Academy Global Professorship award.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors provided inputs in the final manuscript. A.J.K., J.M.M., and P.B. designed the study. A.J.K. collected the data and performed the analysis with help of J.M.M., P.B., H.H. and M.B. M.B. contributed by interpreting and utilizing the FABIO database. B.L. constructed the dietary scenarios. A.J.K. led the writing with major contributions by P.B., J.M.M., H.H, and M.B.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrippa, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2, 198\u0026ndash;209 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEllis, E. C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. \u0026amp; Ramankutty, N. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19, 589\u0026ndash;606 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClark, M. A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5\u0026deg; and 2\u0026deg;C climate change targets. Science (1979) 370, 705\u0026ndash;708 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIvanovich, C. C., Sun, T., Gordon, D. R. \u0026amp; Ocko, I. B. Future warming from global food consumption. Nat Clim Chang 13, 297\u0026ndash;302 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWillett, W. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393, 447\u0026ndash;492 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoore, J. \u0026amp; Nemecek, T. Reducing food\u0026rsquo;s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science (1979) 360, 987\u0026ndash;992 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun, Z. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nat Food 3, 29\u0026ndash;37 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarsden, T., Moragues Faus, A. \u0026amp; Sonnino, R. Reproducing vulnerabilities in agri-food systems: Tracing the links between governance, financialization, and vulnerability in Europe post 2007\u0026ndash;2008. Journal of Agrarian Change 19, 82\u0026ndash;100 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTingey-Holyoak, J., Cooper, B., Crase, L. \u0026amp; Pisaniello, J. A framework for supporting climate-exposed asset decision-making in agriculture. Land use policy 137, (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWelsby, D., Price, J., Pye, S. \u0026amp; Ekins, P. Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5\u0026deg;C world. Nature 597, 230\u0026ndash;234 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMercure, J.-F. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets. Nat Clim Chang 8, 588\u0026ndash;593 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSemieniuk, G. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Stranded fossil-fuel assets translate to major losses for investors in advanced economies. Nat Clim Chang 12, 532\u0026ndash;538 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evon Dulong, A. Concentration of asset owners exposed to power sector stranded assets may trigger climate policy resistance. Nat Commun 14, 6442 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRautner, M., Tomlinson, S. \u0026amp; Hoare, A. \u003cem\u003eManaging the Risk of Stranded Assets in Agriculture and Forestry\u003c/em\u003e. (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaldecott, B., Howarth, N. \u0026amp; Mcsharry, P. \u003cem\u003eStranded Assets in Agriculture: Protecting Value from Environment-Related Risks\u003c/em\u003e. (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReddy, V. R., Anbumozhi, V. \u0026amp; Devi, M. J. Stranded Assets and Protecting Value of Food Value Chain from Disasters and Other External Shocks. in \u003cem\u003eSupply Chain Resilience: Reducing Vulnerability to Economic Shocks, Financial Crises, and Natural Disasters\u003c/em\u003e (eds. Anbumozhi, V., Kimura, F. \u0026amp; Thangavelu, S. M.) 281\u0026ndash;306 (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2020). doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/978-981-15-2870-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-981-15-2870-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKennedy, C. A., Sers, M. \u0026amp; Westphal, M. I. Avoiding investment in fossil fuel assets. J Ind Ecol 27, 1184\u0026ndash;1196 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Comission. The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/FADNPublicDatabase/FADNPublicDatabase.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/FADNPublicDatabase/FADNPublicDatabase.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTransfarmation Project: A Farmer-Led Movement for a Better Food System. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://thetransfarmationproject.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://thetransfarmationproject.org\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Little Mushroom Company. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://thelittlemushroomcompany.co.uk\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://thelittlemushroomcompany.co.uk\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBess, A. \u003cem\u003eet al. Plant-Based Meat Manufacturing Capacity and Pathways for Expansion\u003c/em\u003e. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJust Rural Transition. \u003cem\u003ePrinciples for Just Food System Transitions Envisioning a More Equitable and Sustainable Future-and an Inclusive Path to Achieving It\u003c/em\u003e. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaljonen, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Justice in transitions: Widening considerations of justice in dietary transition. Environ Innov Soc Transit 40, 474\u0026ndash;485 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVerkuijl, C. \u003cem\u003eet al. A Just Transition in the Meat Sector: Why, Who and How?\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.sei.org/publications/just-transition-meat-sector\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.sei.org/publications/just-transition-meat-sector\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e/ (2022) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.51414/sei2022.046\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.51414/sei2022.046\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKortleve, A. J., Mogoll\u0026oacute;n, J. M., Harwatt, H. \u0026amp; Behrens, P. Over 80% of the European Union\u0026rsquo;s Common Agricultural Policy supports emissions-intensive animal products. Nat Food 5, 288\u0026ndash;292 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCDC. Current H5N1 Bird Flu Situation in Dairy Cows. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/mammals.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/mammals.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWright, H. \u0026amp; Stein, H. \u003cem\u003eWhy Animal Welfare Is an Investment Risk. FAIRR Initiative.\u003c/em\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaven, J., \u003cem\u003eet al. Shifting Diets: A Market Opportunity to Abate Climate\u003c/em\u003e, Nature, and Public Health Risks. Protein Diversification Engagement \u0026amp; Novel Food Policy Update. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHelen Harwatt, Matthew N Hayek, Paul Behrens \u0026amp; William J Ripple. \u003cem\u003eOptions for a Paris-Compliant Livestock Sector. Timeframes, Targets and Trajectories for Livestock Sector Emissions from a Survey of Climate Scientists.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Food, A. and F. of D. \u003cem\u003eDanish Action Plan for Plant-Based Foods\u003c/em\u003e. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlanet Tracker. \u003cem\u003eROADMAP FINANCIAL MARKETS FOR TRANSFORMING THE Global Food System: A Guide for the Financial Sector\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArndt, C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5\u0026deg;C target by 2030 but not 2050. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e 119, (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe European Medicines Agency (EMA). \u003cem\u003eVeterinary Antimicrobials in Europe\u0026rsquo;s Environment: A One Health Perspective\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/veterinary-antimicrobials-in-europes-environment\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/veterinary-antimicrobials-in-europes-environment\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlennie, C. \u0026amp; Alkon, A. H. Food justice: Cultivating the field. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e vol. 13 Preprint at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4b2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1088/1748-9326/aac4b2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBruckner, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e FABIO - The Construction of the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input-Output Model. Environ Sci Technol 53, 11302\u0026ndash;11312 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAOSTAT. Food Balances (2010-). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoudard, A., Corbin, E., de Koning, J., Tukker, A. \u0026amp; Mogoll\u0026oacute;n, J. M. Global water and energy losses from consumer avoidable food waste. J Clean Prod 326, (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nature-portfolio","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Nature Portfolio","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5461463/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5461463/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"A large-scale food system transformation is essential in mitigating a host of environmental crises, including climate change. Dietary shifts, particularly a reduction in animal-sourced foods (ASFs) in high-income countries, are a key pillar. These shifts risk stranding substantial ASF-related assets. ASF-focussed assets represent 78% of EU27+UK fixed agricultural assets, with €158 billion linked to livestock and €100 billion to feed production. We estimate that reductions in ASFs of 9.5%, 60%, and 100% in dietary transitions could strand 18%, 50%, and 77% of these assets, respectively. We find that there is generally sufficient time to depreciate and phase-out assets, offering a pathway for limiting stranded assets. Investors should account for potential stranding risks in financial modelling, alongside climate-related risks. Given food producers’ high exposure to the risks of asset stranding – with potential cascading effects throughout the supply chain – integrated policy support is essential in ensuring a just, effective transition.","manuscriptTitle":"Stranded assets in EU+UK agriculture during food system transformations","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-01-22 09:22:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5461463/v1","editorialEvents":[],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nature-food","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"natfood","sideBox":"Learn more about [Nature Food](http://www.nature.com/natfood/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Nature Food","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature Research","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b5251721-7230-4442-b8fd-babe89bf8f84","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 22nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":43086648,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate-change policy"},{"id":43086649,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Environmental economics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-20T08:34:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5461463","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01283-z","journal":{"identity":"nature-food","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Nature Food"},"publishedOn":"2026-01-19 05:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 19th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-01-22 09:22:14","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s43016-025-01283-z","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01283-z","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5461463","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5461463","identity":"rs-5461463","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}