Land Sharing – Sparing approaches: Principles, goals, similarities and differences

Land Sharing – Sparing Continuum Debate – Overview

The concepts of land-sparing and land-sharing

Agriculture, occupying a significant portion of the Earth’s surface, contributes to the reduction of biodiversity. Scientists are seeking solutions for the coexistence of agriculture and species conservation. Land sparing and land sharing are two dominant approaches, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. In 2005, scientists from the University of Cambridge initiated a discussion on land sparing and land sharing as conservation approaches. Land sparing focuses on biodiversity conservation by leaving untouched land areas, while land sharing promotes the coexistence of agriculture and species within the same area. 

This discussion evolved into the “Land Sharing vs Land Sparing Debate,” focusing on the effectiveness and advantages of each approach. These approaches spark division and concern about the future of the agroecosystem and the conflict between agriculture and biodiversity conservation.

Comparison of the Two Approaches

Many questions have occupied researchers and critics in recent years regarding the ultimate suitability of the two methods for implementation. Answers had to be provided regarding whether biodiversity benefits more from integrating elements of natural habitats into agricultural ecosystems or from their separation. 

• To what extent is it feasible to combine these two approaches, and if they cannot be combined, which one can be considered more effective in preventing malnutrition and species extinction? 
• In essence, can sufficient food be produced for humans without impacting the rest of the planet’s species? (ATBC Meeting, 2017).

According to experimental studies, the land-sparing approach in nature conservation seems to bring more benefits at the local level in the short term. Specifically, research in various regions such as Ghana, India, Brazil, and Uruguay suggests that biodiversity is better preserved in areas untouched by agricultural activity. Additionally, studies from Oregon State University indicate that smaller cultivated areas and larger conservation areas favor larger populations of species. It is also emphasized that agroforestry does not replace real forests, and organic farming does not effectively protect beneficial microorganisms compared to intensive agriculture.

Claire Kremen’s research and colleagues from the University of California highlight weaknesses in the land-sparing approach, as experiments show limitations in the predictability of long-term outcomes, both environmentally and socially. Furthermore, there is an emphasis on the need to integrate all species into human-managed landscapes, as studies have shown that some locally isolated organisms face extinction. Additionally, an experiment in elephant grasslands in Kenya revealed that leaving nature untouched, even in protected areas, does not provide complete protection. Only 3% of the risks were mitigated through land sparing, while areas with human agricultural activity maintained their populations, especially in terms of native flora.

Image source: http://community.rspb.org.ukourworkbsciencepostssparing-or-sharing

At the 54th Annual Conference of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, held in July 2017 with the theme “Conservation of Tropical Biodiversity: Ecological and Social Dimensions,” Dr. I. Perfecto highlighted the reasons why the need for the existence and preservation of a unified agroecological framework, rather than separation, is crucial for both food production and biodiversity conservation. 

The key points she emphasized include:

1. The assertion that there is a need to increase global food production is incorrect, as the daily food produced reaches 4,600 calories per person per day (iPES Food, 2016; FAO, 2002; Chapell & Lavalle, 2011).
2. Intensive agriculture does not produce more food compared to diverse agricultural ecosystems, as 70% of the food consumed by people actually comes from smallholders and household farms. Smallholders produce 50% of the consumed food on only a quarter of the land compared to industrialized cultivation, which uses 70% of the land to feed 30% of the population (ETC, 2009).
3. Local extinctions of species are a natural phenomenon that will always occur, regardless of human activities (Newmark, 1995).
4. Out of the 17 studies conducted in Latin America, Asia, and Africa regarding land sparing, 75% showed positive results in terms of biodiversity conservation and food production. However, all of them demonstrated significant forest degradation occurring simultaneously.

To defend the land-sparing model, Ben Phalan, at the same conference, positioned himself around the following axes:

1. Many species on the planet are considered rare and sensitive, requiring targeted protection, which can certainly be achieved through separation and not through integration (Forister et al., 2015).
2. The separation model is not intended to be applied everywhere, but initially, perhaps first in areas of the planet where increased food production is required; therefore, high land yields are essential.
3. The key to this method is to increase production and primarily to enhance soil productivity and have better control over it. The significant aspect is not to generate more food than with integration but to produce it differently, on a smaller scale, gradually leaving more space for natural ecosystems and wildlife to thrive.
4. The purpose of separation is not to distance humans from nature but rather to relocate agricultural activities from areas that are essential for preservation and protection. (ATBC Meeting, 2017).

Ecological Impact of the 2 approaches

According to scientists, the debate on separation or integration into agriculture for nature protection is futile because it lacks a long-term perspective across all agricultural lands regarding their ecological services. Neither of the two approaches considers the required balanced management needed for the multifunctionality of all ecosystems. Integration focuses on ecosystem services within agricultural lands, while separation isolates natural elements with an impact on organism movement. The combination of both methods and strategies is recommended for the connectivity of agricultural lands to ensure biodiversity and the continuous functioning of ecosystems. Additionally, intensive agriculture has negative impacts on biodiversity and leads to the depletion of natural resources, regardless of the area, due to the use of chemicals and fossil fuels.

The Social and Ethical Issues that arise

The dialogue on separation or integration into agriculture highlights ethical and social issues. The strategy we choose affects the world we want to live in, with some arguing that integration provides access to food and nature for more people, while separation may distance us from natural landscapes. The ethical dimension is manifested in the conflict between “separatists” advocating for nature’s values versus “integrators” seeking to serve human needs. The contradiction in this issue is reflected in the need to combine different research fields for a comprehensive understanding. At the same time, the diversity of opinions is underscored by the lack of common results among researchers, highlighting the significant complexity of the issue.

Undressing the economic and political aspects of land-sparing and land-sharing

Contrary to social concerns, the economic aspect of the issue is addressed in a few articles, focusing either on integration versus separation or food production versus biodiversity. The study by the International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) explores economically sustainable alternatives to slash-and-burn practices in Southeast Asian forests. The research examines the idea of intensifying agriculture for land conservation and analyzes the trade-offs between rural production, economic development, and the environment. Additionally, it explores the dilemma of integration versus separation in land management for biodiversity conservation and simultaneous agricultural production increase. Studies approach the issue with the concept of “partial compromise,” emphasizing the importance of combining integration and separation to preserve biodiversity and food security.

The realm of politics states that the choice between separation and integration in agriculture lacks clear directions to ensure the long-term well-being of both humans and wildlife. The separation method has positive outcomes but requires approaches that strengthen biodiversity conservation and address global food security issues. Both approaches advocate for targeted environmental policies but differ in how they should be implemented. While separation proposes policies for better compartmentalization of ecosystems, integration supports a holistic agroecological approach. Model results support that a balance between biodiversity conservation and increased agricultural production can be achieved through mixed strategies.

Conclusion remarks 

The Land Sparing vs. Land Sharing debate analyzes strategies for biodiversity conservation and enhancing agricultural production. Studies support that integration has environmental benefits but reduced yields in food production, while separation brings high yields. Deeper research, including socio-economic factors, is recommended, emphasizing the need for detailed studies with clarity in data while highlighting the challenge of uneven food distribution. The implementation of policies against waste and intensive animal farming is suggested, with an emphasis on combining integration and separation methods. Lastly, a deeper analysis of soil heterogeneity and advocacy for biodiversity is proposed for aligning nature and food care in a sustainable direction.

Furthermore, despite separation and integration being presented as two opposing approaches, they essentially showcase an immense variety of strategies and measures with a common goal. In many studies, these approaches overlap in certain instances. It is a common phenomenon, despite the “opposition” of methods, for one to adopt elements of the other, leading to the conclusion that, since the published studies serve as significant reference points for the evolution of research and as pillars for shaping policies related to species biodiversity and food security, they must be highly detailed and clear in presenting the information. They should take into account, if not all, as many parameters as possible and ensure possible future impacts with the greatest accuracy possible.

References

A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. (2016). [online] Available at: https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_ExecSummary.pdf [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].

‌Barraquand, F. and Martinet, V. (2011). Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: Effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production. Ecological Economics, 70(5), pp.910–920.

Bennett, E.M. (2017). Changing the agriculture and environment conversation. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(1).

Bourguignon, F. and Pleskovic, B. (2008). Rethinking Infrastructure for Development. [online] Google Books. World Bank Publications. Available at: https://books.google.gr/books?hl=el&lr=&id=S0gIIfP4OGUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA175&dq=Pinstrup+%E2%80%93+Andersen [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].

Butsic, V., Radeloff, V.C., Kuemmerle, T. and P idgeon, A.M. (2012). Analytical Solutions to Trade-Offs between Size of Protected Areas and Land-Use Intensity. Conservation Biology, 26(5), pp.883–893.

Chappell, M.J. and LaValle, L.A. (2009). Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values, [online] 28(1), pp.3–26. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-009-9251-4.

‌FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation). 2009. 1.02 million hungry: one sixth of humanity under-nourished — more than ever before. Rome: FAO. www.fao.org/news/story/0/item/20568/icode/en.

Farming Systems Ecology Towards ecological intensification of world agriculture. (2013). [online] Available at: https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/8/3/e/8b4f46f7-4656-4f68-bb11-905534c6946c_Inaugural%20lecture%20Pablo%20Tittonell.pdf [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].

Finch, T., Gillings, S., Green, R.E., Massimino, D., Peach, W.J. and Balmford, A. (2019). Bird conservation and the land sharing‐sparing continuum in farmland‐dominated landscapes of lowland England. Conservation Biology, 33(5), pp.1045–1055.

Fischer, J., Abson, D.J., Butsic, V., Chappell, M.J., Ekroos, J., Hanspach, J., Kuemmerle, T., Smith, H.G. and von Wehrden, H. (2014). Land Sparing Versus Land Sharing: Moving Forward. Conservation Letters, 7(3), pp.149–157.

Fischer, J., Brosi, B., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Goldman, R., Goldstein, J., Lindenmayer, D.B., Manning, A.D., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ranganathan, J. and Tallis, H. (2008). Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(7), pp.380–385.Scariot, A. (2013). Land sparing or land sharing: the missing link. Science, 334: 593-594.

Forister, M.L., Novotny, V., Panorska, A.K., Baje, L., Basset, Y., Butterill, P.T., Cizek, L., Coley, P.D., Dem, F., Diniz, I.R., Drozd, P., Fox, M., Glassmire, A.E., Hazen, R., Hrcek, J., Jahner, J.P., Kaman, O., Kozubowski, T.J., Kursar, T.A. and Lewis, O.T. (2014). The global distribution of diet breadth in insect herbivores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), pp.442–447.

Frison, E.A., Smith, I.F., Johns, T., Cherfas, J. and Eyzaguirre, P.B. (2006). Agricultural Biodiversity, Nutrition, and Health: Making a Difference to Hunger and Nutrition in the Developing World. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 27(2), pp.167–179.

Grass, I., Loos, J., Baensch, S., Batáry, P., Librán‐Embid, F., Ficiciyan, A., Klaus, F., Riechers, M., Rosa, J., Tiede, J., Udy, K., Westphal, C., Wurz, A. and Tscharntke, T. (2019). Land‐sharing/‐sparing connectivity landscapes for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. People and Nature.

Green, R.E. (2005). Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature. Science, [online] 307(5709), pp.550–555. Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/307/5709/550.full.pdf [Accessed 11 Feb. 2020].

Hart, R., Brady, M. and Olsson, O. (2013). Joint Production of Food and Wildlife: Uniform Measures or Nature Oases? Environmental and Resource Economics, 59(2), pp.187–205.

Hertel, T.W., Ramankutty, N. and Baldos, U.L.C. (2014). Global market integration increases likelihood that a future African Green Revolution could increase crop land use and CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, [online] 111(38), pp.13799–13804. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13799.short [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].

Imeche (Institution of Mechanical Engineers). 2013. Global Food: Waste Not, Want Not. London: Imeche.

Karner, K., Cord, A.F., Hagemann, N., Hernandez-Mora, N., Holzkämper, A., Jeangros, B., Lienhoop, N., Nitsch, H., Rivas, D., Schmid, E., Schulp, C.J.E., Strauch, M., van der Zanden, E.H., Volk, M., Willaarts, B., Zarrineh, N. and Schönhart, M. (2019). Developing stakeholder-driven scenarios on land sharing and land sparing – Insights from five European case studies. Journal of Environmental Management, [online] 241, pp.488–500. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479719303536.

Kremen, C. (2015). Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1355(1), pp.52–76.

Martinet, V. and Barraquand, F. (2012). Trade-offs between food production and biodiversity conservation: some economic aspects. [online] Available at: http://bioecon-network.org/pages/14th_2012/Martinet.pdf [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].

Martinet, V. ed., (2014). The economics of the Food versus Biodiversity debate. [online] AgEcon Search. Available at: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/182800/ [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].

Mega-mergers and the concentration of power in the agri-food sector: How dominant firms have become too big to feed humanity sustainably. (n.d.). [online] Available at: https://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/too_big_to_feed_short_report_etc_ipes_web_final.pdf [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].

‌Mouysset, L., doyen, L. and jiguet, F. (2014). From Population Viability Analysis to Coviability of Farmland Biodiversity and Agriculture. Conservation Biology, 28(1), pp.187–201.

Newmark, W.D. (1995). Extinction of Mammal Populations in Western North American National Parks. Conservation Biology, 9(3), pp.512–526.

‌Pearce, Fred. Sparing vs Sharing: The Great Debate Over How to Protect Nature. 2018.

Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. and Green, R.E. (2011). Reconciling Food Production and Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing and Land Sparing Compared. Science, 333(6047), pp.1289–1291.

Phalan, Benjamin T. What have we learned from the land sparing-sharing model?. Sustainability, 2018, 10.6: 1760.

Salles, J.-M., Teillard, F., Tichit, M. and Zanella, M. (2017). Land sparing versus land sharing: an economist’s perspective. Regional Environmental Change, 17(5), pp.1455–1465.

Shackelford, G.E., Steward, P.R., German, R.N., Sait, S.M. and Benton, T.G. (2014). Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes: hotspots of conflict between agriculture and nature. Diversity and Distributions, 21(3), pp.357–367.

Sidemo‐Holm, W., Ekroos, J. and Smith, H.G. (2021). Land sharing versus land sparing—What outcomes are compared between which land uses? Conservation Science and Practice, 3(11).

Teillard, F., Jiguet, F. and Tichit, M. (2015). The Response of Farmland Bird Communities to Agricultural Intensity as Influenced by Its Spatial Aggregation. PLOS ONE, 10(3), p.e0119674.

Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, M., Budidarsono, S., Gillison, A., Kusumanto, T., Murdiyarso, D., … & Fagi, A. M. (2001). Agricultural intensification, deforestation, and the environment: assessing tradeoffs in Sumatra, Indonesia. Tradeoffs or synergies, 221-244

Towards productive landscapes E T F R N N E W s 56. (n.d.). [online] Available at: https://communityrights.tropenbos.org/file.php/1742/etfrn56web.pdf#page=25 [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].

van Noordwijk, M., Tomich, T.P. and Verbist, B. (2002). Negotiation Support Models for Integrated Natural Resource Management in Tropical Forest Margins. Conservation Ecology, [online] 5(2). Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26271833 [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].

Yucatan, M. and Mexico (2017). 54 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation. [online] Available at: https://tropicalbiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ATBC-meeting-2017-Proceedings.pdf [Accessed 17 Jan. 2022].