The rapid increasing human population challenges our food supply in terms of achieving efficient and productive agricultural land use, while also conserving biodiversity. The debate whether land for nature and for production should be segregated (sparing) or integrated (sharing) with wildlife is ongoing. Inappropriate agricultural management can lead to environmental degradation and conventional agriculture intensification often results in contamination by pesticides and fertilizers, which can affect human health and create non-target effects on wildlife and functional agro biodiversity (Meehan et al., 2011).
Tscharntke et al. (2012) argues that implementing agro-ecological principals in agriculture, i.e. adopting eco-efficient and environmentally friendly management with a focus on more diversified cropping systems can greatly improve productivity and contribute to closing yield gaps. Further, Tscharntke et al. (2012) states that linking agricultural intensification with biodiversity conservation requires well-informed, regional solutions and the challenge is more complex that first assumed.
The paradox of scale is the phenomenon whereby small and diversified farmers, rather than large monocultures, show greater productivity per area (Horlings and Marsden, 2011). Community-managed forests suffer from lower deforestation rates than protected forests (Porter-Bolland et al., 2012), which highlights the importance of participation and involvement of rural communities.
We discussed the complexities of linking global food security, biodiversity and agricultural intensification. Food security is needed where the hungry live, which is often within a landscape matrix of ecosystems that are rich in biodiversity. Thus, the intensification of agriculture will necessarily be different from one place to another and from one country to another all depending on conditions, agricultural culture and history. This led to thoughts about interpretations of terms as environment, sustainability and organic farming.
To ecologists the issue is about land sparing versus land sharing, but for the average consumer it may be simpler; the choice of conventional versus organic products. Consumers are a part of the driving market power that determines whether the food is produced conventionally or organic. Pure and Green’s promotion for organic products gives a simplified suggestion of what organic means. Check out link for YouTube video (4:29 minutes). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BebNsezt6r0&feature=related
Is it that simple? Should we as scientists involve the general population more in the details on the consequences of agriculture? Is it important and possible to engage consumers in biodiversity and the effect of agricultural management?
References
Meehan, T.D., Werling, B.P., Landis, D.A., Gratton, C., 2011. Agricultural landscape simplification and insecticide use in the Midwestern United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. doi:10.1073/pnas.1100751108.Horlings, L.G., Marsden, T.K., 2011. Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernization of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’. Global Environ. Change.
Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E.A., Guaruiguata, M.R., Ruiz-Mallen, I., Negrete- Yankelevich, S., Reyes-Garcia, V., 2012. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecol. Manage. 268, 6–17.
I think scientists may help by sharing their knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of the two options (land sharing, land sparing) in the implementation of environmental education and interpretation programs. By doing this, the clients would be properly informed about what does a ¨conventional¨ or ¨organic¨ product really mean, thus they can make a choice of what to buy. Nowadays people are actually starting to give importance to the environment and trying to find a way to help towards the conservation of biodiversity. Therefore, if they start demanding for ¨clean¨ products, the market will have no choice but to offer them. Again, we need to involve social science if we wish to actually make a change.
ReplyDeleteElisa, I think Adrian might suggest that as soon as a 'scientist has clients' they are no longer a 'scientist' by strict definition. A 'social scientist' they may be, but even then should social scientists advocate change or simply record and measure? You are right, I think, regarding 'sharing their knowledge' but the step from informing to advocating is a small one is it not?
DeleteKrebs et al.(1999) estimate that in the past 20 years, ten million breeding individuals of ten species of farmland birds have disappeared from the British countryside. This is in part because of the loss of the invertebrate and plant populations upon which they depend.This loss of biodiversity is attributed to intensification and industrialization of agriculture.
ReplyDeleteThe 1963 classic Silent Spring Rachel Carson informed the public of the toxic side of commonly used pesticides such as DDT and their effects on biodiversity. These chemicals are no longer used in the majority of countries.
The loss of biodiversity through intensive agriculture has sometimes been called the second silent spring (Krebs et al. 1999).
The general public needs to be informed by robust science on the environmental costs of intensive agriculture and be advised of the alternatives. Educated consumers may ultimately put pressure on governments to legislate towards more sustainable agriculture.
The discussed paper puts forward the debate between land sparing vs wildlife friendly farming on which they conclude that the issues are not "black and white".
Phalan et al. (2011) suggests evidence shows that trade-offs between biodiversity and yield are common. Wildlife-friendly farming can
support high species diversity but there is a large number of wild species that cannot survive in even the most benign farming systems. Protection of natural habitat is a must for the survival of these species. Conservation objectives must be integrated into local and international polices to limit the impacts on biodiversity of increasing food production (Phalan et al, 2011).
There is certainly a need for more research and public education into the effects of farming on biodiversity.
Krebs J., Wilson J., Bradbury R., Siriwarden M, The second Silent Spring?, Nature 400 (1999) 611-612
Phalan B., Balmford A., Green E., Scharlemann P, Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally, Food Policy 36 (2011) 62-71
Denise, you say the issues are 'not black & white', but what is it that makes it grey then? Your next paragraph suggest that land-sparing is the answer and that land-sharing cannot work alone, is that right? I want to throw a scale question into the mix here to see if I can muddy the water even more ;) How large do the untouched native forests in a farm mosiac (land-sharing) need to be before it is called land-sparing? Is there really a difference between the two from an ecological viewpoint or is it this debate more about policymakers then interpret or rationalise outcomes based on the, as they see it, dichotomous argument?
DeleteMy question is for the agroecologists out there. Do we need a major shift towards organic systems, or can we use them in combination with conventional systems within a more complex landscape setting (with greater 'natural' habitat areas, refuges, higher diversity, etc.)? In other words, is it organic agriculture that will give us sustainable agriculture to feed ourselves, or, is it maintaining high-level and complex ecosystem functions in our agroecological landscapes?
ReplyDeleteHannah, I would argue for the latter, that is complex ecosystems etc. Organic is just a label but it is also more that that. It invokes lifestyle, health, welfare etc. These are value judgements not science. Having said that organic production is, or rather was, based on organic holistic science such as soil food webs and nutrient cycling. This are your complex ecosystems. The issue is that you can be certified 'organic' without necesserally farming holistically (it is just accreditation - you pay to be a member right) - massive organic grain farms in the USA using acrredited organic fertilser etc. Having said this, Organics can help to 'feed ourselves' as you say be the very non-science that is part of its ethos such as the Principle of Fairness (IFOAM).
DeleteYou can do all of the things you mention above without being organic but some people find the label useful in directing their goals or aims. For my take on the usefulness of 'labels' see my reply to Denise :)
Hi Lise, No I don't think it is that simple, see Hannah's comment and my reply. In answer to your other questions I think Elisa's point is a good one. I'm not so sure that the question is 'should we as scientists involve the general population...' but rather should we as scientists contribute to the debate that is raging amongst the general popluation. A slight difference but the pint is that scientists do not decide what happens, the public do. Therefore the answer to your final question must be a resounding Yes! Otherwise we are blowing into the wind aren't we? That is why informed people like you are going to drive sustainable food production forward in the 21st century! :)
ReplyDelete