“Food policymakers urged to consider land sparing in biodiversity efforts”
Rewilding, organic farming, and nature-friendly farming measures outlined in government conservation policies could inadvertently worsen the global biodiversity crisis. These approaches, although well-intentioned, have the potential to reduce food production, leading to increased reliance on food imports and environmental damage abroad.
In a recent article published in the journal Nature, renowned experts Professor Ian Bateman from the University of Exeter and Professor Andrew Balmford from the University of Cambridge advocate for a more comprehensive and cost-effective approach known as ‘land sparing’. This alternative strategy avoids displacing food production and the loss of wildlife habitats overseas, making it a more viable option.
Land sparing entails finding ways to enhance yields in farmed areas, thus allowing for the allocation of larger non-farmed areas for nature preservation. Unfortunately, policymakers have largely overlooked this approach due to their failure to consider the broader consequences of changes in land management. While alternative measures to boost local wildlife may appear appealing, they often result in reduced food production and subsequent unavoidable repercussions in other regions.
The influence of the ‘Big Farm’ lobby, which perpetuates the status quo in agricultural policy, further complicates this issue. The allocation of land-sharing subsidies favors larger farms, with the top 12% receiving 50% of all UK taxpayer subsidies, creating an imbalance.
The authors of the article refute the perceived benefits to biodiversity associated with three commonly advocated green farming approaches. They argue that measures such as reducing pesticide and fertilizer use may help common animals and plants on farms but have limited impact on endangered species that require larger non-farmed habitats. Moreover, these changes can unintentionally exacerbate the decline of biodiversity abroad.
While rewilding initiatives prove fruitful for preserving endangered species at the local level, they often lead to reduced local food production, increased reliance on food imports, and subsequent harm to biodiversity overseas.
Organic farming, with its focus on crops produced without manufactured fertilizers and modern pesticides, has even greater potential for damaging biodiversity. The benefits to farmed areas are relatively few, and the lower yields associated with organic farming amplify the need for food imports, consequently intensifying a country’s impact on biodiversity elsewhere.
In stark contrast, land sparing involves maintaining or creating substantial unfarmed areas that house various species dependent on natural habitats. This approach is paired with enhancing farm yields in other regions, ensuring overall production remains stable or even increases.
Several promising methods to boost crop and livestock yields sustainably are being explored, including genomic screening, gene editing, and advances in aquaculture. These innovations offer high-value food production while minimizing environmental impact. Moreover, tropical countries can benefit from improved pasture and veterinary care.
Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of land sparing is an additional advantage. A survey of UK farmers revealed that land sparing could achieve equivalent biodiversity outcomes for birds at 48% of the cost to taxpayers compared to conventional approaches. It also reduces the impact on food production by 21%.
Professor Ian Bateman, an expert in environmental economics, emphasizes that policymakers cannot continue to ignore the immense potential of land sparing. Inadequate decision-making without a holistic assessment of interventions aimed at addressing biodiversity loss and climate change will fall short or even worsen these crises.
Professor Andrew Balmford, a renowned conservation scientist, highlights the urgency surrounding this issue since many countries committed to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s goal of protecting 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030. The decisions made on how to allocate this 30% and meet humanity’s growing food needs elsewhere will significantly influence the consequences for biodiversity.
While some proponents argue that most farming systems are inherently incompatible with wildlife conservation, advocates of land sharing contend that farming can be part of the solution when harmonized with nature. Consequently, they believe that both agroecology and nature recovery can coexist effectively.
In conclusion, current conservation policies risk accelerating biodiversity loss. By embracing the concept of land sparing, policymakers can take a more comprehensive and cost-effective approach that delivers tangible outcomes for both wildlife preservation and food production. It is imperative that researchers and policymakers thoroughly evaluate the broader, global effects of interventions to address biodiversity decline and climate change to avoid exacerbating these critical challenges.
Reference:
“Current conservation policies risk accelerating biodiversity loss”
Nature
DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-01979-x