Land sparing or land sharing: what light can agricultural science shed on the issue?

Damien Beillouin is an agronomist and data analyst with CIRAD. His work relates to global agronomy, in other words he studies the performance of farming systems (yields, ecosystem services, etc) on a plot and supra-plot scale.

The so-called land sparing vs land sharing debate is far from new. Hasn’t the scientific community reached a conclusion yet?

Damien Beillouin: Yes, the debate began some twenty years ago, but it has returned with a vengeance in recent political talks* relating to biodiversity and farming. It was originally triggered by ecologists, who essentially rely on theoretical models. Their basic assumption is that compromises inevitably have to be found between agricultural yields and biodiversity. To put it another way, the more we maximize production, the more biodiversity tends to shrink. But are these two aspects really incompatible? With my colleagues from CIRAD and our partners, we are working to find ways of farming while protecting the living world in all its diversity. Our research results show that such compromises between agricultural yields and biodiversity are far from systematic: they are highly dependent on farming practices, ecological situations and scales of analysis.

We think it is crucial to bring the views of agronomists, sociologists and economists back into the debate, which is too often dominated by ecologists.

We also feel that it is important to take account of grassroots realities. To quote just one example, just making a given zone a protected natural area is not enough to ensure that it is actually protected. It takes resources and appropriate governance and means empowering local communities. There are plenty of examples of protected areas being destroyed, unfortunately. In some cases, contrary to what we might expect, it is sustainably farmed areas that best protect the environment.

Is there a correlation between high-yielding agriculture and an overall reduction in cultivated land area?

D.B.: Not necessarily: there are many contextual factors at play. However, the Green Revolution, a pretty emblematic example, suggests not. This policy of transforming farming systems in the global South was based on intensification and technology in the form of inputs, high-yielding varieties and irrigation. The result was a spectacular increase in agricultural output, without a corresponding increase in the area under crops, and less hunger worldwide. But the Green Revolution also caused overall environmental degradation (pollution, soil erosion, salinization, etc), and huge biodiversity losses. Since then, the area under crops has never decreased, which can be put down to the “rebound effect” economists are so fond of: when crops are intensified, they become more profitable, and more farmers want to switch to them. This phenomenon may also influence the change in diets, notably as a result of agricultural price falls, indirectly encouraging farmers to maintain or increase the areas planted. At the same time, population growth, increased demand for food, and the effects of climate change trigger greater pressure on agricultural land, which often results in the conversion of forests and natural habitats. The result is that forests are cleared to become farmland. Every year, an area equivalent to that of a country like Portugal is cleared, primarily for conversion to agriculture. It is worth noting that the EU Deforestation and Forest Degradation Regulation (EUDR), which is due to come into force in late 2025, is an attempt to counter this rebound effect.

People in favour of land sparing are calling for sustainable high-yielding agriculture. Is there such a thing?

D.B.: That’s a good question! It’s obvious that nobody is against high yields, and in some regions, it is no doubt necessary to increase production, primarily using fertilizers or other traditional farming technologies. However, the notion of “sustainable” also entails social, environmental and health factors that must be taken into account and assessed. The “high-yielding sustainable agriculture” recommended by fans of land sparing is based on sustained access to fertilizers, improved varieties (including genetically modified ones), markets and conventional agricultural advisory services, in a very top-down overall approach. In short, practices that are very similar to those promoted by the Green Revolution. This raises questions about how this model actually differs from the current paradigm of agricultural intensification, whose limitations come in for constant criticism. Unless it is substantially adapted to issues such as biodiversity, climate change, farmers’ wages and people’s right to choose what they eat, might this approach not perpetuate the decline in biodiversity, the agricultural sector’s role in climate warming, low pay for farmers, and malnutrition, which still affects more than 700 million people worldwide?

According to you, decades of agriculture focused on yields alone have not worked. Why?

D.B.: Our analyses show that productivist approaches (chemical inputs, standard varieties, heavy mechanization, GM crops, etc) were essential and have boosted productivity substantially, but they have now reached their limitations in many places. Such approaches have failed to stop biodiversity losses and have had considerable hidden social, environmental and health costs.

Lastly, contrary to common belief, our results show that land sharing does not necessarily mean lower yields. Agroecological practices such as agroforestry, integrated pest management (IPM) and crop diversification can combine productivity, profitability, climate resilience and biodiversity benefits. This is the challenge a lot of CIRAD researchers are working to tackle: helping to build and roll out this type of solutions.

Beyond the debate itself, you insist on the importance of including social justice in farming strategies…

D.B.: I do! Any approach will fail unless it encompasses inequalities, land rights and community participation. By combining agronomic analyses and the socioecological perspective, CIRAD’s work is helping to bring agronomists’ views back into the international debate on biodiversity and agroecological transitions. It should also provide pointers to steer research and recommendations on biodiversity protection, agroecological transitions, resilience to climate change and sustainable development of rural territories.

_{* This debate arose in recent international talks on biodiversity (COP16 in Cali and COP16.2 in Rome). It is central to the issues surrounding the rollout of the Global Biodiversity Framework. It is also part of European and global strategies on sustainable agriculture and discussions on funding agroecological transition. Lastly, it showed up in the EU Deforestation and Forest Degradation Regulation (EUDR), which is exclusively based on conserving relatively untouched forests.}