Opinion: The scientific case for land sparing is compelling

A report last year from the World Resources Institute (WRI) noted that, while about 85% of the planet’s usable land is already used for commercial forestry or agriculture, the world is on course to need more than 50% extra food and wood by 2050 compared with 2010.

At present rates of yield increase, meeting this demand would mean converting an area of natural habitat up to twice the size of India.

As such, the WRI says the world urgently needs to turn to “land-sparing” policies, accelerating gains in agricultural productivity to avoid further loss of natural ecosystems.

See also: ‘Land sharing’ is best policy for regen ag to thrive, says Ian Pigott

Land sparing

“Land sparing” involves optimising high-tech, high-yield production on as small a land area as possible, so leaving more room for intact nature and carbon sequestration.

In 2018, a 10-year international study led by UK conservation scientist Prof Andrew Balmford concluded that land-sparing offers the most effective farm policy to deliver on food, climate and biodiversity goals.

Nevertheless, the UK’s agriculture and land use policies continue to be founded on a “land-sharing” approach, seeking to deliver food production and conservation at the same time, for example by reducing input use and creating small-scale unfarmed habitats.

Typically, a land-sharing approach results in lower yields, so more land is required to produce the same amount of food.

Prof Balmford, together with environmental economist Prof Ian Bateman, recently warned that adopting land-sharing policies with the intention of reducing farming’s environmental impact may unwittingly accelerate global biodiversity loss and negative climate impact by driving up food imports, unless corresponding policy action is taken to deliver yield increases elsewhere.

So why is “land sparing” not the dominant policy approach today?

Large landowner influence

One answer may lie in the political influence of large landowners interested in maintaining the status quo (given that 12% of farms currently receive 50% of all taxpayer subsidies).

Those landowners don’t come much larger than the National Trust or the RSPB, which between them own more than 450,000ha.

Together with the Wildlife Trusts, these major NGOs recently commissioned an independent land use report whose central conclusion was that “at least £4.4bn a year is needed for nature-friendly farming,” rather than the £3.5bn currently spent on farm support.

However, closer inspection reveals that this isn’t the report’s conclusion at all…

Far from advocating £4.4bn for farming, the report actually recommends that about half of that budget should be diverted away from agriculture and spent on creating or restoring woodland, wetland and semi-natural grassland on 25% of currently farmed land by 2050.

The NGO-led report also advocates that the rest of the proposed £4.4bn budget should be spent on agri-environment schemes and an expansion of organic farming.

Having recommended taking 25% of farmland out of production, the report is silent on the need for a corresponding increase in food production on the remaining farmland to avoid the need for more food imports, and to avert potentially even greater harm to biodiversity, climate impact and environmental degradation elsewhere.

I’d like to ask these NGOs: Where is our food going to come from?

The UK government must also explain how its target to maintain domestic food production at current levels will be delivered in the context of a “land-sharing” policy which, for example, pays farmers to not use approved insecticides, to reduce their fertiliser use, and to take farmland out of production.

You can’t have your cake and eat it…