Agriculture and nature

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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
increase
4. Too mechanistic in the way agriculture is linked to biodiversity
– Downplays the importance of supportive markets and policies

5. There are synergies – not
only tradeoffs – between
agriculture and nature
Contribution of forest to rural
livelihoods

6. Direct contribution of forest to nutrition

7. Indirect contribution of forest
to nutrition

8. Indirect contribution of forest
to nutrition

9. Indirect contribution of forest
to nutrition

10. Indirect contribution of forest
to nutrition

11. 0
2
4
6
8
Dietdiversity
(n°foodgroups)
Distance to the forest
Indirect contribution of forest
to nutrition
χ2 = 110.68
P < 0.0001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Near Intermediate Distant
Cropproductivity
(GJha-1farmland)
Distance to the forest
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Near Intermediate Distant
Livestockproductivity
(GJha-1farmland)
Distance to the forest
F = 0.358
n.s.
χ2= 8.9701
P < 0.05

12. Relativeabundance
Crop productivty

13. Relativeabundance
Crop productivty
Livestock productivity
?
Relativeabundance
Fuelwood availability
?
Relativeabundance
Diet diversity
?
Relativeabundance
Livestock productivity
?
Relativeabundance

14. Winner or loser? What metrics to
consider for ‘farming intensity’
Crop production Livestock production
Fuel production
Diet diversity

15. Winner or loser? What metrics to
consider for ‘farming intensity’
Crop production
Losers, Land Sparing Losers, Land Sharing
Winners, Land Sparing Winners, Land Sharing
Livestock production, fuel
production, or diet diversity
?

16. 0
5
10
15
20
25
Near Intermediate Distant
EnergyUseEfficiency
Distance to the forest
χ2 = 7.8393
P < 0.05
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Near Intermediate Distant
Carbonbalance(tha-1)
Distance to the forest
F = 5.267
P < 0.05
Biomass flows from the forest
promote sustainability

17. Biomass flows from the forest
promote self-organization & stability
r = -0.430
P < 0.05
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 50 100 150 200
Dependency
Forest input (GJ farm-1)
r = 0.429
P < 0.050
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 50 100 150 200
Redundancy
Forest input (GJ farm-1)

18. There are synergies – not
only tradeoffs – between
agriculture and nature
Interactions between farmed and
non-farmed patches

19. The matrix: ‘green desert’ or part of
the habitat of several species?

20. Hydrology and microclimate:
regulating services from forests
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 2 4 6 8
Grainyield(tha-1)
Distance from the trunk (m)

21. Provision of regulating ecosystem
services: pest control
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 10 30
Numberofantscaptured
inpitfalltraps
Distance to dense hedgerow (m)

22. Mobile link organisms: supporting
services
(McCauley et al., 2012)

23. Farming that is both
productive and benign for the
environment requires
pragmatism and flexibility

24. Use of external inputs does not imply negative
consequences for ecosystems downstream or
downwind if spillover effects are managed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 50 100 150 200 250
Soilloss(tha-1yr-1)
Date (days after planting)

25. Maintaining ecosystem services is not
important for low-input agriculture only

26. Taking into account what
happens after the farm gate
and understanding farmers’
objectives

27. 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

28. 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)

29. 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

30. Nature-friendly agriculture is
unlikely without supportive
markets and policies

31. 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

32. 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).

33. Thank you
for your
interest!
f.baudron@cgiar.org

34. A proposed stepwise approach to manage
multifunctional landscapes
1. Mapping critical areas for biodiversity and agriculture
2. Understanding interactions between patches: services and
disservices
3. Understanding livelihood diversity and dependency on biodiversity
4. Identifying drivers of land-use change and outcomes for rural
livelihoods
5. Understanding the fate of the major agricultural products after
harvest
6. Promoting co-learning
7. Designing, testing and promoting interventions at farm-level
8. Collective actions: interventions at landscape-level
9. Platforms for negotiation, enforcement, and renegotiation
10. Market and policy instruments

35. Landscapes
Livelihoods
Nutrients, energy
Supporting services
Regulating services
Cultural services Production services

36. Landscape composition and
availability of grazing areas