Land sharing vs sparing: views from an agronomist

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).

Thank you for your interest!

f.baudron@cgiar.org

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