1. Wageningen, 26 March 2015
Frédéric Baudron,
CIMMYT-Ethiopia
Revisiting the Borlaug hypothesis
& alternative approaches to manage the
agriculture-nature interface

3. 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

4. 0
1
2
3
4
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Maizeyield(tha-1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Wheatyield(tha-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

5. The Borlaug Hypothesis: Land Sparing
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Millionhectares
Mexico, maize
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Millionhectares
Mexico, wheat
15.3 Mha
1.4 Mha
0
5
10
15
20
25
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Millionhectares
Spared
Actual
India, maize
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Millionhectares
India, wheat
13.6 Mha
81.6 Mha

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. Cropland expansion in the
tropics and subtropics
Fate of remaining
biodiversity-rich areas?
(FAO, 2010)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. ● 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

17. 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

18. 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
Annualadditionallandrequired
fortheperiod2000-2030(Mha)
Land degradation
Protected areas
Urban expansion
(Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011)

19. Land Sparing or Sharing?
Based on What Criteria?

20. ● Response of the species of interest
to farming intensity
Land Sparing or Sharing?
Based on What Criteria?
(Baudron and Giller., 2014)

21. ● 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?

22. ● 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?

23. ● 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?

24. Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
● Producing differently
● Beyond the plot
● Beyond production
● Supportive markets and policies
● Towards multifunctional landscape mosaics

25. Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
Producing differently

26. Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
Producing differently
● Managing spillover effects
 Conservation agriculture
 ‘Precision Agriculture’

27. 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

28. 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

29. Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
Beyond the plot

30. 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
Airtemperature(°C)
Time of the day (h)
Outside canopy
Under canopy
0
20
40
60
80
1 10 30
Numberofrovebeetles
captured
Distance to ensete field (m)

31. 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)

32. Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
Beyond production

33. Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
Beyond production
● Reduction of food losses and
wastes
 Storage and cooling facilities
 Transport from the farm to the market

34. 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

35. 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

36. Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
Supportive markets and policies

37. 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)

38. 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

39. Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
Towards multifunctional landscape mosaics
Relativeabundance
Crop productivty Livestock productivity
Fuelwood availability
Wild food
?
Relativeabundance
Food system, nutrition
?
Relativeabundance

40. Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?
Towards multifunctional landscape mosaics
Natural ennemies Pollinators Hydrology Erosion control
Interactions between patches
Nutrient transfer

41. 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

42. THANK YOU