land sharing vs sparing: views from an agronomist
TRANSCRIPT
Beyond the Land Sparing vs. Land Sharing Framework
Views from an Agronomist
Frédéric Baudron, Systems Agronomist, CIMMYT Ethiopia
University of British Columbia, 9th March 2016
Norman Borlaug & the Borlaug hypothesis
1970: Recipient of the Nobel Peace Price
1964: Director of CIMMYT’s Wheat Program
‘Father of the Green Revolution’ (Mexico, India, Pakistan)
CIMMYT’s icon ever since
Land sparing vs. sharing: main framework used in policy debates
Land sparing Land sharing
• Land Sparing (i.e. Borlaug hypothesis)– Maximizing yield to minimize the area farmed– Segregation of land uses
• Land Sharing– Low external input use and retention of patches of natural habitat– Integration of land uses
Framework developed (and used) by conservation ecologists, not by agronomists
Favors biodiversity outcomes and suffer from a number of limitations when considering farming and rural livelihoods:
1. Too much focus on tradeoffs– Ignores synergies between agriculture and biodiversity (rural livelihoods,
landscape mosaics)
2. Opposes high-yielding industrial agriculture with low-input agriculture– Lacks pragmatism and flexibility when it comes to agriculture
3. Too much emphasis on yield– Ignores post-harvest inefficiencies and farmers objectives beyond yield
increase4. Too mechanistic in the way agriculture is linked to biodiversity
– Downplays the importance of supportive markets and policies
There are synergies – not only tradeoffs – between
agriculture and nature
Contribution of forest to rural livelihoods
Direct contribution of forest to nutrition
Indirect contribution of forest to nutrition
Indirect contribution of forest to nutrition
Indirect contribution of forest to nutrition
Indirect contribution of forest to nutrition
0123456789
Distance to the forest
Diet
div
ersi
ty(n
° foo
d gr
oups
)
Indirect contribution of forest to nutrition
χ2 = 110.68P < 0.0001
Near Intermediate Distant28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Distance to the forest
Crop
pro
ducti
vity
(GJ h
a-1
farm
land)
Near Intermediate Distant0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Distance to the forest
Lives
tock
pro
ducti
vity
(GJ h
a-1
farm
land)
F = 0.358n.s.
χ2= 8.9701P < 0.05
Rela
tive
abun
danc
e
Crop productivty
Rela
tive
abun
danc
e
Crop productivty
Livestock productivity
?
Rela
tive
abun
danc
e
Fuelwood availability
?
Rela
tive
abun
danc
e
Diet diversity
?Re
lativ
e ab
unda
nce
Livestock productivity
?
Rela
tive
abun
danc
e
Winner or loser? What metrics to consider for ‘farming intensity’
Crop production Livestock production
Fuel production
Diet diversity
Winner or loser? What metrics to consider for ‘farming intensity’
Crop production
Losers, Land Sparing Losers, Land SharingWinners, Land Sparing Winners, Land Sharing
Livestock production, fuel production, or diet diversity
?
Near Intermediate Distant0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Distance to the forest
Ener
gy U
se E
ffici
ency
χ2 = 7.8393P < 0.05
Near Intermediate Distant0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Distance to the forest
Carb
on b
alan
ce (t
ha-
1) F = 5.267P < 0.05
Biomass flows from the forest promote sustainability
Biomass flows from the forest promote self-organization & stability
r = -0.430P < 0.05
0 50 100 150 2000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4R² = NaN
Forest input (GJ farm-1)
Depe
nden
cy
r = 0.429P < 0.05
0 50 100 150 2000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4R² = NaN
Forest input (GJ farm-1)
Redu
ndan
cy
There are synergies – not only tradeoffs – between
agriculture and nature
Interactions between farmed and non-farmed patches
The matrix: ‘green desert’ or part of the habitat of several species?
Hydrology and microclimate: regulating services from forests
0 2 4 6 80
100200300400500600
Distance from the trunk (m)
Grai
n yi
eld
(t h
a-1)
Provision of regulating ecosystem services: pest control
1 10 3005
1015202530354045
Distance to dense hedgerow (m)
Num
ber o
f ant
s cap
ture
din
pitf
all t
raps
Mobile link organisms: supporting services
(McCauley et al., 2012)
Farming that is both productive and benign for the
environment requires pragmatism and flexibility
Use of external inputs does not imply negative consequences for ecosystems downstream or
downwind if spillover effects are managed
0 50 100 150 200 2500
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Soil
loss
(t h
a-1
yr-1
)
Date (days after planting)
Maintaining ecosystem services is not important for low-input agriculture only
Taking into account what happens after the farm gate and understanding farmers’
objectives
Reducing food losses and wastes is as important as increasing yield
The first mile for high value agricultural commodities in Kenya:• 0.4 to 10 % of the logistic chain length• but 20 to 37 % of the transport cost
Increasing yield may not be the primary objective of farmers
• Immigrant land appropriation (i.e. appropriation through cultivation; Demont et al., 2007; Baudron et al., 2011)
• Land speculation in agricultural frontiers (Fearnside, 1999)
Increasing yield may not be the primary objective of farmers
Farming style (Van der Ploeg, 1994; Leeuwis, 1993)• ‘Hippie farmers’, ‘Machine Men’,
‘Cow Men’, etc
Nature-friendly agriculture is unlikely without supportive
markets and policies
Valuing biodiversity & returning this value to farmers
• Proper pricing (embodying the true costs and benefits of agricultural practices) and labelling of commodities
• Payment for Environmental Services: compensation & reward
Policy framework• Land sparing: set-aside programs, control of immigration• Land sharing: incentives that promote production and consumption
patterns that are less demanding in land, water and other natural resources
Conclusion
• The land spring vs. sharing framework has been useful in stimulating debates
• However, a decade after the seminal paper of Green et al. (2005), it is time for agronomists to enrich the debate:– Consider rural livelihoods and landscape mosaics as systems– In most contexts, both inputs and beneficial organisms are
needed– Think beyond yield increase! Understand value chains;
understand the rationale of farmers.– Ultimately, agriculture is shaped by markets and policies, which
each individual can influence, as a consumer and a voter (Baudron and Giller, 2014).
A proposed stepwise approach to manage multifunctional landscapes
1. Mapping critical areas for biodiversity and agriculture2. Understanding interactions between patches: services and
disservices3. Understanding livelihood diversity and dependency on biodiversity4. Identifying drivers of land-use change and outcomes for rural
livelihoods5. Understanding the fate of the major agricultural products after
harvest6. Promoting co-learning7. Designing, testing and promoting interventions at farm-level8. Collective actions: interventions at landscape-level9. Platforms for negotiation, enforcement, and renegotiation10. Market and policy instruments
Landscapes
Livelihoods
Nutrients, energy
Supporting services
Regulating services
Cultural services Production services
Landscape composition and availability of grazing areas
