Abstract
Under the current scenario of rapid human population increase, achieving efficient and productive agricultural land use while conserving biodiversity is a global challenge. There is an ongoing debate whether land for nature and for production should be segregated (land sparing) or integrated on the same land (land sharing, wildlife-friendly farming). While recent studies argue for agricultural intensification in a land sparing approach, we suggest here that it fails to account for real-world complexity. We argue that agriculture practiced under smallholder farmer-dominated landscapes and not large-scale farming, is currently the backbone of global food security in the developing world. Furthermore, contemporary food usage is inefficient with one third wasted and a further third used inefficiently to feed livestock and that conventional intensification causes often overlooked environmental costs. A major argument for wildlife friendly farming and agroecological intensification is that crucial ecosystem services are provided by “planned” and “associated” biodiversity, whereas the land sparing concept implies that biodiversity in agroecosystems is functionally negligible. However, loss of biological control can result in dramatic increases of pest densities, pollinator services affect a third of global human food supply, and inappropriate agricultural management can lead to environmental degradation. Hence, the true value of functional biodiversity on the farm is often inadequately acknowledged or understood, while conventional intensification tends to disrupt beneficial functions of biodiversity. In conclusion, linking agricultural intensification with biodiversity conservation and hunger reduction requires well-informed regional and targeted solutions, something which the land sparing vs sharing debate has failed to achieve so far. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Generated Summary
This journal article examines the complex interplay between agricultural intensification, biodiversity conservation, and global food security. It critiques the land sparing vs. land sharing debate, which proposes segregating land for either production or conservation. The authors argue that this dichotomy oversimplifies real-world complexities, particularly the role of smallholder farming in global food security. The study emphasizes the significance of agroecological approaches, highlighting their potential to sustain ecosystem services, minimize environmental costs, and maintain functional biodiversity, challenging the conventional intensification strategies that often overlook the value of biodiversity within agroecosystems. The research uses a multi-faceted approach, integrating insights from existing studies and analyzing the impact of various factors like food production, land use, and agricultural practices. The scope of the study is global, addressing the challenges and opportunities in balancing agricultural productivity with biodiversity conservation in the context of a growing human population.
Key Findings & Statistics
- It is often asserted that there is a need for 70-100% more food.
- The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 sets the targets of halting the loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services as major goals and setting 2020 as the target for restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems.
- It is asserted that yield increase from agricultural intensification could be used as a strategy to restrict human requirements for land.
- The majority of poor people live in rural areas with little or no access to productive agricultural lands.
- 90% of farmers worldwide farm on <2 ha.
- 80% of the hungry live in developing countries with 50% being smallholders.
- Globally, a third of harvested food is thrown away or even half of all food is lost.
- Livestock requires on average 7 kcal input (cereal grain feed) for every kcal generated (range: 16 kcal for beef to 3 kcal for broiler chickens).
- Cereals fed to livestock make up 30-50% of global cereal production.
- Meat consumption is predicted to rise from 37 to 52 kg/person/year (2000-2050).
- Bioenergy production tripled in the last decade.
- 15% of global cereal and plant oil production as well as 30% of sugarcane production is expected to go into biofuel by 2020.
- The EU biofuel directive (2008) requires that 10% of all transport fuel should come from biofuel by 2050.
- Soil degradation has been estimated to affect 16-40% of terrestrial area.
- 70-320 billion euros per year is the estimated cost of all N losses in Europe.
- Sevenfold increase in N-fertilizer application in 1960–1995 resulted in doubling of cereal yields, but efficiency declined from 70 to 25 kg grain per kg N.
- Around 90% of angiosperms require pollinators for reproduction.
- Pollinators improve production of 70% of the globally most important crop species (124 crop species).
- Pollinators influence 35% of global human food supply.
- 30-40% of potential crop yield is destroyed by pathogens and pests.
- In Central Europe, a field hosts several 100,000 individuals and several 100’s of species of predators (beetles, spiders, flies).
Other Important Findings
- Smallholder farms, rather than large-scale commercial farms, are the backbone of global food security.
- Food security is largely independent of the land sharing vs. sparing debate.
- Conventional intensification causes often overlooked environmental costs.
- Agroecological approaches can support high yields while also supporting biodiversity.
- The value of functional biodiversity on the farm is often inadequately acknowledged or understood.
- The strategy of Phalan et al. (2011a) to increase yields without explicitly considering the actual and potential cost of biodiversity losses, which can compromise ecosystem functionality and resilience in agriculture,
- Agricultural intensification, in the developed world, does not necessarily contribute to global hunger reduction.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study’s reliance on existing literature may reflect biases or limitations in the original research.
- The dichotomy view between land sharing and land sparing may oversimplify the complexities of real-world agricultural practices and their effects on biodiversity.
- The study acknowledges that the relationship between yield and biodiversity can be complex and variable, and some of the arguments are based on generalizations.
- The study’s analysis may not fully account for regional variations or specific local contexts that could influence the effectiveness of different agricultural approaches.
Conclusion
The central argument underscores the necessity for well-informed regional and targeted solutions when linking agricultural intensification with biodiversity conservation and hunger reduction. The authors challenge the conventional intensification strategy, advocating for a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the importance of biodiversity within agroecosystems. They emphasize the need to move beyond the simplistic dichotomy of land sparing versus land sharing, arguing that efficient management can reconcile high yields and biodiversity. The authors stress that increased yield does not automatically lead to land sparing and that conventional intensification can disrupt the beneficial functions of biodiversity, thereby degrading environmental quality and threatening the sustainability of food production. Furthermore, there are promising management options that balance human and ecological needs, which are often illustrated by the high variability in yield-biodiversity relationships. The authors conclude that the challenges are significant, and linking agricultural intensification with biodiversity conservation and hunger reduction is a great challenge for the future. The study suggests a shift toward prioritizing agroecological intensification as a means to achieve food security, protect biodiversity, and address the critical challenges of the 21st century.