Realism about productivity gains in agriculture and water is critical to understand if the world can feed itself while protecting nature. We use government-reported data to review progress over 2000–2020 compared to projections for irrigated and rainfed agriculture and trade. Our results over the period 2000–2020 show that productivity gains largely did not materialize. Instead of consolidating cereal production and trade in favourable regions like North America, Europe and Russia, their arable land declined by 35 million hectares, while arable land expanded by 74 million hectares in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Asia. Likewise, water productivity gains did not materialize, as photosynthesis breakthroughs did not occur. Land productivity (yield) gains were projected to rise 21–61 %, making the observed increase in cereal yields of 31 % a slight one. This puts the world on the path of using steadily more land and water to produce food and feed, at the expense of nature. Solutions to veer off this path include reducing food demand (including dietary change), stabilising rainfed agriculture and broadening the crop genetic resources base.

Realism about productivity gains in agriculture and water is critical to understand if the world can feed itself while protecting nature. We use government-reported data to review progress over 2000–2020 compared to projections for irrigated and rainfed agriculture and trade. Our results over the period 2000–2020 show that productivity gains largely did not materialize. Instead of consolidating cereal production and trade in favourable regions like North America, Europe and Russia, their arable land declined by 35 million hectares, while arable land expanded by 74 million hectares in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Asia. Likewise, water productivity gains did not materialize, as photosynthesis breakthroughs did not occur. Land productivity (yield) gains were projected to rise 21–61 %, making the observed increase in cereal yields of 31 % a slight one. This puts the world on the path of using steadily more land and water to produce food and feed, at the expense of nature. Solutions to veer off this path include reducing food demand (including dietary change), stabilising rainfed agriculture and broadening the crop genetic resources base.

Realism about productivity gains in agriculture and water is critical to understand if the world can feed itself while protecting nature. We use government-reported data to review progress over 2000–2020 compared to projections for irrigated and rainfed agriculture and trade. Our results over the period 2000–2020 show that productivity gains largely did not materialize. Instead of consolidating cereal production and trade in favourable regions like North America, Europe and Russia, their arable land declined by 35 million hectares, while arable land expanded by 74 million hectares in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Asia. Likewise, water productivity gains did not materialize, as photosynthesis breakthroughs did not occur. Land productivity (yield) gains were projected to rise 21–61 %, making the observed increase in cereal yields of 31 % a slight one. This puts the world on the path of using steadily more land and water to produce food and feed, at the expense of nature. Solutions to veer off this path include reducing food demand (including dietary change), stabilising rainfed agriculture and broadening the crop genetic resources base.

The need for integrated governance of water–energy–land–food (WELF) systems has become paramount in achieving sustainable low-carbon transitions, yet policy consistency across these interdependent sectors remains critically underexplored. This study presents the first systematic assessment of policy consistency and synergy within China’s WELF framework, employing an innovative mixed-methods approach that combines a modified Policy Modeling Consistency (PMC) Index with Content Analysis Methodology (CAM). Policy consistency follows a clear hierarchy: energy (PMC = 9.06, ‘Perfect’), water (8.26, ‘Good’), land (7.03, ‘Acceptable’), and food systems (6.91, ‘Acceptable’), with land–food policies exhibiting critical gaps in multifunctional design. Policy synergy metrics further reveal pronounced sectoral disparities: energy (PS = 0.89) and water (0.81) policies demonstrate strong alignment with central government objectives, whereas land (0.68) and food (0.64) systems exhibit constrained integration capacities due to uncoordinated policy architectures and competing sectoral priorities. Building on these findings, we propose three key interventions: (1) institutional restructuring through the establishment of an inter-ministerial coordination body with binding authority to align WELF sector priorities and enforce consistent and synergy targets, (2) the strategic rebalancing of policy instruments by reallocating fiscal incentives toward nexus-optimizing projects while developing innovative market-based mechanisms for cross-sectoral resource exchange, and (3) adaptive governance implementation through regional policy pilots, dynamic feedback systems, and capacity-building networks to enable context-sensitive WELF transitions while maintaining strategic consistency and synergy. These recommendations directly address the structural deficiencies in WELF governance fragmentation and incentive misalignment identified through our rigorous analysis, while simultaneously advancing theoretical discourse and offering implementable policy solutions for achieving integrated low-carbon transition.

The need for integrated governance of water&ndash:energy&ndash:land&ndash:food (WELF) systems has become paramount in achieving sustainable low-carbon transitions, yet policy consistency across these interdependent sectors remains critically underexplored. This study presents the first systematic assessment of policy consistency and synergy within China&rsquo:s WELF framework, employing an innovative mixed-methods approach that combines a modified Policy Modeling Consistency (PMC) Index with Content Analysis Methodology (CAM). Policy consistency follows a clear hierarchy: energy (PMC = 9.06, &lsquo:Perfect&rsquo:), water (8.26, &lsquo:Good&rsquo:), land (7.03, &lsquo:Acceptable&rsquo:), and food systems (6.91, &lsquo:Acceptable&rsquo:), with land&ndash:food policies exhibiting critical gaps in multifunctional design. Policy synergy metrics further reveal pronounced sectoral disparities: energy (PS = 0.89) and water (0.81) policies demonstrate strong alignment with central government objectives, whereas land (0.68) and food (0.64) systems exhibit constrained integration capacities due to uncoordinated policy architectures and competing sectoral priorities. Building on these findings, we propose three key interventions: (1) institutional restructuring through the establishment of an inter-ministerial coordination body with binding authority to align WELF sector priorities and enforce consistent and synergy targets, (2) the strategic rebalancing of policy instruments by reallocating fiscal incentives toward nexus-optimizing projects while developing innovative market-based mechanisms for cross-sectoral resource exchange, and (3) adaptive governance implementation through regional policy pilots, dynamic feedback systems, and capacity-building networks to enable context-sensitive WELF transitions while maintaining strategic consistency and synergy. These recommendations directly address the structural deficiencies in WELF governance fragmentation and incentive misalignment identified through our rigorous analysis, while simultaneously advancing theoretical discourse and offering implementable policy solutions for achieving integrated low-carbon transition.

Protecting ecological sources and restoring ecological stepping stones (ESSs) are key to constructing ecological security patterns (ESPs) in small-scale rural areas. Ecosystem services (ESs) associated with Water–Energy–Food (W-E-F) influence the ecological security of rural areas. However, how to construct rural ESPs to enhance the synergy and connectivity of W-E-F systems remains unclear. This study thus proposes a framework of rural ESP construction and optimization based on the coupling coordination analysis of ESs related to W-E-F, including Water yield, Carbon storage, and Food production. Using the Changsha–Zhuzhou–Xiangtan Green Heart region as a case, it identifies ecological sources and corridors through the coupling coordination degree (CCD) model and circuit theory. Moreover, it optimizes the ESP by incorporating the optimal ESS plan to improve source connectivity. The results show 14 ecological source patches covering a total area of 86.73 km² and 117.21 km of ecological corridors. Three ESS plans are evaluated, with Option II proving optimal, increasing corridor length by 31.02% and source connectivity by 57.10%, which is based on the high CCD of three ESs. The “One Core, Three Zones, Four Corridors, and Multiple Points” scheme was defined as the ESP. This study underscores the significance of small-scale ecological restoration and advocates a shift from a “single ES” to a “coupled ESs” perspective. And it offers new insights aiming to enhance the source connectivity from the “patch–corridor–matrix” paradigms to the “patch–stepping stone–matrix” framework. It also provides feasible suggestions for balancing ecological protection and resource sustainability in rural areas.

Protecting ecological sources and restoring ecological stepping stones (ESSs) are key to constructing ecological security patterns (ESPs) in small-scale rural areas. Ecosystem services (ESs) associated with Water&ndash:Energy&ndash:Food (W-E-F) influence the ecological security of rural areas. However, how to construct rural ESPs to enhance the synergy and connectivity of W-E-F systems remains unclear. This study thus proposes a framework of rural ESP construction and optimization based on the coupling coordination analysis of ESs related to W-E-F, including Water yield, Carbon storage, and Food production. Using the Changsha&ndash:Zhuzhou&ndash:Xiangtan Green Heart region as a case, it identifies ecological sources and corridors through the coupling coordination degree (CCD) model and circuit theory. Moreover, it optimizes the ESP by incorporating the optimal ESS plan to improve source connectivity. The results show 14 ecological source patches covering a total area of 86.73 km2 and 117.21 km of ecological corridors. Three ESS plans are evaluated, with Option II proving optimal, increasing corridor length by 31.02% and source connectivity by 57.10%, which is based on the high CCD of three ESs. The &ldquo:One Core, Three Zones, Four Corridors, and Multiple Points&rdquo: scheme was defined as the ESP. This study underscores the significance of small-scale ecological restoration and advocates a shift from a &ldquo:single ES&rdquo: to a &ldquo:coupled ESs&rdquo: perspective. And it offers new insights aiming to enhance the source connectivity from the &ldquo:patch&ndash:corridor&ndash:matrix&rdquo: paradigms to the &ldquo:patch&ndash:stepping stone&ndash:matrix&rdquo: framework. It also provides feasible suggestions for balancing ecological protection and resource sustainability in rural areas.