Wageningen, 26 March 2015
Frédéric Baudron,
CIMMYT-Ethiopia
Revisiting the Borlaug hypothesis& alternative approaches to manage the
agriculture-nature interface
Norman Borlaug
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
0
1
2
3
4
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Ma
ize
yie
ld (
t h
a-1
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Wh
ea
t yie
ld (
t h
a-1
)
India
Mexico
The Green Revolution
● High-yielding, ‘modern’ varieties of
wheat, rice and later maize
Morphology (short, many tillers, erect leave)
Traits (high yield potential, wide adaptation, etc)
● Accompanied by a suite of other
changes:
Technological changes (fertilizer, irrigation)
Changes in land use
Changes in the labor economy
● Positive outcomes:
Improved rural incomes (farmers and laborers)
Lower food prices
Transformed a number of developing countries
(e.g. India) from large food importers and recipients
of food aid into food secure countries
The Borlaug Hypothesis: Land Sparing
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Mil
lio
n h
ec
tare
s
Mexico, maize
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Mil
lio
n h
ec
tare
s
Mexico, wheat
15.3 Mha
1.4 Mha
0
5
10
15
20
25
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Mil
lio
n h
ec
tare
s
Spared
Actual
India, maize
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Mil
lio
n h
ec
tare
s
India, wheat
13.6 Mha
81.6 Mha
Investing in Agriculture to Conserve
nature
● Protected areas are not sufficient(only 12% of all terrestrial land)
● Growing underfunding of protected
areas
● Species range shift due to climate
change
● Human population tends to be
concentrated in areas rich in
biodiversity
(from
Balmford et
al., 2001)
Agriculture is Expanding
● Additional 3 billion people by 2050
● Increase in global wealth and per
capita consumption
● Rising number of undernourished
people
● National food security… and political
stability
● Global demand for agricultural
products expected to double from
2005 to 2050 (Tilman et al., 2011)
Annual per capita dependence of caloric
demand and GDP (Tilman et al., 2011)
Food price and violent protests (Lagi et al.,
2011)
Cropland expansion in the
tropics and subtropics
Fate of remaining
biodiversity-rich areas?
(FAO, 2010)
Change in
Biodiversity
Altered
Ecosystem
Processes
Increased Flow of
Ecosystem Goods
& Services
Increased
Human Benefits
Change in
Species Traits
Negative Consequences of
Agriculture on Biodiversity
Change in
Biodiversity
Biotic Removals
& Additions
Altered
Ecosystem
Processes
Increased Flow of
Ecosystem Goods
& Services
Increased
Human Benefits
Change in
Species Traits
Negative Consequences of
Agriculture on Biodiversity
Altered
Biogeochemical
& Hydrological
Cycles
Change in
Biodiversity
Biotic Removals
& Additions
Altered
Ecosystem
Processes
Increased Flow of
Ecosystem Goods
& Services
Increased
Human Benefits
Change in
Species Traits
Negative Consequences of
Agriculture on Biodiversity
Altered
Biogeochemical
& Hydrological
Cycles
Change in
Biodiversity
Biotic Removals
& Additions
Altered
Disturbance
Regimes
Altered
Ecosystem
Processes
Increased Flow of
Ecosystem Goods
& Services
Increased
Human Benefits
Change in
Species Traits
Negative Consequences of
Agriculture on Biodiversity
Altered
Biogeochemical
& Hydrological
Cycles
Change in
Biodiversity
Biotic Removals
& Additions
Altered
Disturbance
Regimes
Altered
Ecosystem
Processes
Increased Flow of
Ecosystem Goods
& Services
Increased
Human Benefits
Change in
Species Traits
Altered Habitats
Negative Consequences of
Agriculture on Biodiversity
Altered
Biogeochemical
& Hydrological
Cycles
Change in
Biodiversity
Biotic Removals
& Additions
Altered
Disturbance
Regimes
Altered
Ecosystem
Processes
Increased Flow of
Ecosystem Goods
& Services
Increased
Human Benefits
Change in
Species Traits
Altered Habitats
Negative Consequences of
Agriculture on Biodiversity
Benefits of Land Sparing
● Country-level evidences of
spared land (in theory)
● Biodiversity: Ghana, India,
Uganda (e.g. Phalan et al., 2011;
Hulme et al., 2013)
● Intensification and climate
change mitigation
● Yield gaps
● Poverty traps (low level equilibrium)
(Mueller et al., 2012)
(Phalan et al., 2011)
● Land sparing is ‘imperfect’ (slower
growth, but not reduction in cultivted area)
Elastic demand for food crops
Subsidies
Shift to other crops
● Far-reaching impacts of agro-
chemicals
● Intensification may attract migrants
● Poor access to knowledge and
capital
● Poor transport and infrastructures
Limits to land Sparing
Rudel et al., 2009
Land Sharing as an alternative
(Wright et al., 2012)● Low external input use and retention
of patches of natural habitat
● Integration of land uses
● Dependency of many (open-habitat)
species on farmland
● Farmlands structurally similar to
native vegetation support high
biodiversity
Limits to Land Sharing
● Efficiency of large-scale national
program is very variable
● Organic inputs are scarce
● Extensive practices
Low yield
Extra land for the production of biomass and
manure
● Possibility of displacement
More the 1/3 of the food consumed by
Sweden in 1994 was imported 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Minimum Maximum
An
nu
al
ad
dit
ion
al la
nd
req
uir
ed
fo
r th
e p
eri
od
2000
-2030 (
Mh
a)
Land degradation
Protected areas
Urban expansion
(Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011)
Land Sparing or Sharing?
Based on What Criteria?
● Response of the species of interest
to farming intensity
Land Sparing or Sharing?
Based on What Criteria?(Baudron and Giller., 2014)
● Response of the species of interest
to farming intensity
● Scale and landscape-specific
circumstances
Topography, productivity, ‘spatial grain’
Land Sparing or Sharing?
Based on What Criteria?
● Response of the species of interest
to farming intensity
● Scale and landscape-specific
circumstances
Topography, productivity, ‘spatial grain’
● Threats to the species of interest
Intensification vs. expansion, contrast
farmland-natural vegetation
Land Sparing or Sharing?
Based on What Criteria?
● Response of the species of interest
to farming intensity
● Scale and landscape-specific
circumstances
Topography, productivity, ‘spatial grain’
● Threats to the species of interest
Intensification vs. expansion, contrast
farmland-natural vegetation
● Socio-economic factors
Land pressure, endowment, technological
options, markets, policies
Land Sparing or Sharing?
Based on What Criteria?
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
● Producing differently
● Beyond the plot
● Beyond production
● Supportive markets and policies
● Towards multifunctional landscape mosaics
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Producing differently
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Producing differently
● Managing spillover effects
Conservation agriculture
‘Precision Agriculture’
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Producing differently
(Steffen et al., 2011)
● Managing spillover effects
Conservation agriculture
‘Precision Agriculture’
● Maintaining resilience
Stress tolerant varieties
Mixture of species/cultivars
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Producing differently
● Managing spillover effects
Conservation agriculture
‘Precision Agriculture’
● Maintaining resilience
Stress tolerant varieties
Mixture of species/cultivars
● Maintaining ecological interactions
Intra-guild interactions (resource partitioning, competition,
facilitation)
Trophic interactions (decomposers, predators, parasites)
Spatial dynamics (ecological subsidies) and temporal
dynamics (disturbance regime)
Stability by self organization
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond the plot
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond the plot
● Redesigning farming systems
at farm-level
Management of populations of
natural enemies
Facilitative interaction
Nutrient transfer
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Air
tem
per
atu
re (°
C)
Time of the day (h)
Outside canopy
Under canopy
0
20
40
60
80
1 10 30Nu
mb
er o
f ro
ve b
eetl
es
cap
ture
d
Distance to ensete field (m)
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond the plot
● Redesigning farming systems
at farm-level
Management of populations of
natural enemies
Facilitative interaction
Nutrient transfer
● Redesigning farming systems
at landscape-level
Collective action at territory level
Institutional innovation
(Baudron et al., submitted)
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond production
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond production
● Reduction of food losses and
wastes
Storage and cooling facilities
Transport from the farm to the market
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond production
● Reduction of food losses and
wastes
Storage and cooling facilities
Transport from the farm to the market
● Access to food
‘Food sovereignty’: equitable distribution and
local accessibility
Securing land tenure to smallholders
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond production
● Reduction of food losses and
wastes
Storage and cooling facilities
Transport from the farm to the market
● Access to food
‘Food sovereignty’: equitable distribution and
local accessibility
Securing land tenure to smallholders
● Changes in consumption patterns
Discourage grain fed livestock
Discourage biofuel production that competes
with food crop production
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Supportive markets and policies
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Supportive markets and policies
● Valuing biodiversity, and returning this
value to farmers
Pricing (embodying the true costs and benefits of agricultural
practices) and labelling of commodities
Compensation (foregone use of land, disservices) and
rewards (PES)
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Supportive markets and policies
● Valuing biodiversity, and returning this
value to farmers
Pricing (embodying the true costs and benefits of agricultural
practices) and labelling of commodities
Compensation (foregone use of land, disservices) and
rewards (PES)
● Policy framework
Agri-environment payments to farmers
Policies that prevent deforestation & encourage
abandonment
Control of immigration in developing countries
Removal of perverse policies (e.g. subsidies)
Incentives that promote production and
consumption patterns that are less demanding in
NR
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Towards multifunctional landscape mosaics
Rela
tive
ab
un
dance
Crop productivty Livestock productivity
Fuelwood availability
Wild food
?
Rela
tive
ab
un
dance
Food system, nutrition
?
Rela
tive
ab
un
dance
Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Towards multifunctional landscape mosaics
Natural ennemies Pollinators Hydrology Erosion control
Interactions between patches
Nutrient transfer
Conclusion
● Green Revolution: adapted to the context
of the 60s and 70s, but no longer the right
model
● Major move of CIMMYT towards
‘sustainable intensification’
● Agriculture as an opportunity for
conservation (not only a threat)
● Biodiversity as input to farming
● Expanding the partnership between
conservation organizations and
agricultural agencies
THANK YOU