Wildlife‐friendly farming vs land sparing

Abstract

land sparing Fischer et al. (Front Ecol Environ 2008; 6[7]: 380–85) discussed the important debate between approaches addressing the global biodiversity crisis and the pressures to provide for the increasing human population. Although we agree with the general thrust of their argument, we feel that they miss several crucial points in comparing “land sparing” (intensifying agriculture in some areas to save biodiversity elsewhere) and “wildlife-friendly farming” (farming that integrates conservation and production). First, their argument regarding lower yields in wildlife-friendly farming might be better supported with more recent literature. For example, Badgley et al. (2007) reviewed 293 examples comparing alternative and conventional agriculture from 91 studies (broadly speaking, alternative agriculture may be considered as “wildlife friendly”). This study found that even under conservative global estimates taking nitrogen sourcing into account, alternative agriculture could provide almost as much food on a caloric basis as is produced today by conventional means, whereas the more realistic estimate indicated the potential for a substantial increase in production. Likewise, many farmers in poorer nations use low-intensity or subsistence methods – intensification, either by conventional or wildlife-friendly means, would increase yields. Considering the biodiversityrelated benefits of wildlife-friendly agriculture, these findings alone obviate much of the basis for the “land sparing” approach. We also feel that a more skeptical view (questioning whether “sparing land for nature” schemes work) is warranted, as we are unaware of any empirical evidence showing that any type of intensification can reliably yield “spared land”. We would add that (1) intensification itself may produce economic incentives encouraging expansion of the intensified land base, possibly endangering the very land that is to be saved (Perfecto and Vandermeer 2008), and (2) population pressure and hunger have little direct relationship with actual agricultural production. To the latter point, it is capitalization and conspicuous consumption that most affect agricultural expansion, since enough food is already produced on a caloric, per capita basis (Badgley et al. 2007). Often, increased production does little for the poorest people, who lack effective economic demand (eg Patnaik 1991; Waldman 2002). Continuing business-as-usual (as assumed by Balmford et al. 2005) means overconsumption by some, while others remain hungry. Addressing socioeconomic inequalities has the potential to decrease the need for agricultural expansion. Without a relinking of resource use to actual need, there is little reason to think expansion would stop if or when the global population stabilizes. By overlooking such points, Fischer et al. miss perhaps the most important point of contention in the “sparing land” debate. Inclusion of these factors would strengthen their valuable call for careful consideration of options in this crucial area. M Jahi Chappell, John Vandermeer, Catherine Badgley, and Ivette Perfecto Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (mjc365@cornell.edu); Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI