Farming: Thoughts on an intense debate

Wheat farming

In a book that's already annoyed a lot of greens with its enthusiasm for nuclear power and geo-engineering, Mark Lynas's The God Species also floats the question of which kind of agriculture is actually best for nature.

The book formed part of my holiday reading - but having accidentally dropped it in the bath, my copy has disintegrated, so I can't bring you any direct quotes from the chapter in question.

But essentially the question is this: is it better for people and for nature to pursue nature-friendly farming over extended areas, or to concentrate agriculture in smaller areas and set aside the rest for nature to do its thing unfettered by plough and seed?

For the author, the second emerges as the favoured option - including the use of genetic technologies where indicated.

GM technologies are just the tip of an iceberg of farming intensification that also includes fertilisers, pesticides, fungicides, mechanisation, high-yield hybrids, irrigation... and much, much more.

Because yields are relatively low in "nature-friendly" farming systems that eschew such technical innovations, he argues, you require more farmland overall - hence, there's more impact on nature overall.

Yet that's a tough sell for much of the green movement, where campaigners in the developed and developing worlds alike argue for more "natural" systems.

As is often the case in this sort of debate, there's a burning need for data.

And this week, the journal Science publishes a paper that probably goes further than any other in analysing the "land-sharing v land-sparing" question.

Sparing the land

Researchers from Cambridge University studied the relationship between farming and two measures of biodiversity - bird and tree abundance - in areas of Ghana and India.

Both study areas encompassed farming systems of varying intensity.

Lion caught in trap Conflicts between nature and farmers can be devastating for wildlife

So in each place, they could look at the amount of food produced and the natural health of the land.

The overall conclusion? Sparing beats sharing.

"Farmland with some retained natural vegetation had more species of birds and trees than high-yielding monocultures of oil palm, rice or wheat but produced far less food energy and profit per hectare," noted lead author Ben Phalan.

And the "nature-friendly" farms weren't all they were cracked up to be.

"Compared with forest, they failed to provide good habitat for the majority of bird and tree species in either region."

At least in these areas, then, farming in one place as intensively as you need to and leaving forest as natural as you can in other places beats the low-impact, widespread model.

Growing policy

It's not the end of the story, of course.

The authors admit that conclusions might be different in another country, in another type of ecosystem.

Farm Intensive farming might be best for nature overall - though bringing big changes to the landscape

The write-up on Mongabay also raises the time-honoured - but still essentially correct - point that food shortages are not so much a consequence of not producing enough but of sharing it around poorly; though the sheer amount may become a bigger factor, of course, in a future world of nine billion people.

When I phoned Dr Phalan for a chat, he also acknowledged that in a real-world situation where science informs policy-making, you'd have to take into account projections of the future - climate change, water availability (population growth would have an impact) and other things.

"There are lots of ways in which you could make this more complicated and more realistic, and there are lots of other things you could bring in - carbon storage provided by forests, agricultural water use," he said.

"What we're interesting in doing is not providing a final answer, but starting to integrate more than one factor, which hasn't typically been done before."

On the biodiversity side, the type of land separation would also be an issue.

It's well known that if you cut natural habitat up into small chunks, populations of species get fragmented which is not at all good from a conservation point of view.

There's a social equation as well - pertaining more in rich countries than poor, but still of interest - in terms of how we use countryside for recreation.

Ramblers and cyclists might prefer land-sharing as it leads to large tracts of countryside on which you'll see trees and water and maybe even a bird or a a rabbit.

Other people may prefer smaller patches of unfettered wilderness and be prepared to put up with the soulless monoculture in between.

In all honesty, I don't think we're yet at the stage of using this science for policy-making - and neither do the authors of this paper.

Next steps they're planning include similar research in the very different landscapes of Poland, and the development of models that allow more and more factors to be integrated.

But if the broad conclusion turns out to hold true after they and others have gone deeper into it, it will present some challenges to policy-makers - and, indeed, to the green movement.

In a developed country where land has already largely been apportioned, how will governments decide which communities should take on more intensive farms and which live on the edge of a natural wilderness?

Richard Black Article written by Richard Black Richard Black Former environment correspondent

Farewell and thanks for reading

This is my last entry for this page - I'm leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 26.

    The population issue is the key to any future balance. As alluded to elsewhere it is simply a ratchet mechanism, more food=more people.

    The decision is how much of the earths finite resources can be converted into human beings. We havnt found the limiting factor, might be space, or psychological issues?

    Alternatively, selective breeding to get us to hobbit size will buy some time!

  • Comment number 25.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 24.

    Jim Lovelock suggested a third each for Nature, Farmland and Man's living & other constructions. The problem is that if we don't move on this soon, there will be no species left to inhabit that Natural third. All of these debates are of course meaningless until the over population problem has been sorted. 7 billion by November we are told. Heaven help us.

  • rate this

    Comment number 23.

    '22. R
    3RD SEPTEMBER 2011 - 18:33
    "thank heavens for small mercies it wasn't on an e-reader,'

    Douglas would have approved, one feels, especially on the extent of the analogies (many a good para from the BArk to savour)

    '"Well what happened you see was," said the Captain, "our planet, the world from which we have come, was, so to speak, doomed."

  • rate this

    Comment number 22.

    "The book formed part of my holiday reading - but having accidentally dropped it in the bath, my copy has disintegrated", well thank heavens for small mercies it wasn't on an e-reader, then it would be a really expensive blunder. Mixed nature-farmland is not to replace natural wild areas, but to mitigate the total loss that occurs when an area is set over for regular farming.


Comments 5 of 26



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.