Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes: hotspots of conflict between agriculture and nature.

Gorm E Shackelford,Richard N German,Steven M Sait,Peter R Steward,Tim G Benton,David Richardson

doi:10.1111/ddi.12291

Abstract

AimConservation conflict takes place where food production imposes a cost on wildlife conservation and vice versa. Where does conservation impose the maximum cost on production, by opposing the intensification and expansion of farmland? Where does conservation confer the maximum benefit on wildlife, by buffering and connecting protected areas with a habitable and permeable matrix of crop and non-crop habitat? Our aim was to map the costs and benefits of conservation versus production and thus to propose a conceptual framework for systematic conservation planning in agricultural landscapes.LocationWorld-wide.MethodsTo quantify these costs and benefits, we used a geographic information system to sample the cropland of the world and map the proportion of non-crop habitat surrounding the cropland, the number of threatened vertebrates with potential to live in or move through the matrix and the yield gap of the cropland. We defined the potential for different types of conservation conflict in terms of interactions between habitat and yield (potential for expansion, intensification, both or neither). We used spatial scan statistics to find ‘hotspots’ of conservation conflict.ResultsAll of the ‘hottest’ hotspots of conservation conflict were in sub-Saharan Africa, which could have impacts on sustainable intensification in this region.Main conclusionsSystematic conservation planning could and should be used to identify hotspots of conservation conflict in agricultural landscapes, at multiple scales. The debate between ‘land sharing’ (extensive agriculture that is wildlife friendly) and ‘land sparing’ (intensive agriculture that is less wildlife friendly but also less extensive) could be resolved if sharing and sparing were used as different types of tool for resolving different types of conservation conflict (buffering and connecting protected areas by maintaining matrix quality, in different types of matrix). Therefore, both sharing and sparing should be prioritized in hotspots of conflict, in the context of countryside biogeography.

Highlights

From 2005 to 2050, demand for food could as much as double (Tilman et al, 2011)
The debate between ‘land sharing’ and ‘land sparing’ could be resolved if sharing and sparing were used as different types of tool for resolving different types of conservation conflict
We suggest that the matrix should be the target of a new form of systematic conservation planning in agricultural landscapes – a method of identifying agricultural landscapes of especially high quality and prioritizing the resolution of conservation conflicts in these landscapes

Summary

Introduction

From 2005 to 2050, demand for food could as much as double (Tilman et al, 2011) To meet this increase in demand, it has been suggested that there should be an increase in supply, much of which would need to come from an increase in production (The Royal Society, 2009). This suggestion is controversial (Lang & Barling, 2012; Tomlinson, 2013) Such an increase in production, without an increase in distribution, accessibility and affordability, might meet the demands of the rich, but it would not meet the needs of the poor or the undernourished, and it would have a massive impact on the environment, without insuring food security or food sovereignty (Tilman et al, 2001; Tscharntke et al, 2012; Loos et al, 2014). Where would an increase in production do the most damage to conservation, and where would it do the least? In other words, where are there ‘hotspots’ of conflict between agriculture and nature, and where are there not? The resolution of these ‘conservation conflicts’ (Balmford et al, 2001; Henle et al, 2008; Dobrovolski et al, 2011; Redpath et al, 2013) could be prioritized in the ‘hottest’ hotspots

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion