Agriculture & nature conservation

Frédéric BaudronCIMMYT Ethiopia

f.baudron@cgiar.org

Why & How Should Conservation Invest in

Agriculture?

WHY?

Agriculture under pressure

Rising number of undernourished people

National food security… and political stability

Additional 3 billion people by 2050

Increasing wealth

Growing number of undernourished people (FAO, 2009)

Food price and violent protests (Lagi et al., 2011)

(FAO, 2010)

Challenge Mainly for Developing Countries

Fate of the Last Biodiversity-rich Areas?

Is Agriculture a High Priority for

Conservation?

TNC: 723.7M USD

WCS: 199.3M US$

WWF:

186.8M US$

CI:138.8 M US$

Budget of the 4 largest conservation organizations > 1.2 billion US$/year

< 5% invested in agriculture

Support of the ‘wilderness approach’ (i.e. protected areas)

Only 12% of all terrestrial land is protected

Growing underfunding of protected areas

Species range shift due to climate change

Earth is dominated by humans

Why Conserve Biodiversity outside of

Protected Areas?

(from Balmford et al., 2001)

(from Willis et al., 2004)

Wild Areas?

HOW?

Biotic removal s & additions Altered habitat

Altered biogeochemical & hydrological cycles

Altered disturbance regime

Negative Consequences of Agriculture on

Biodiversity

Food Fuel

FiberFood

Change in biodiversity

Altered ecosystem processes

INCREASED HUMAN

BENEFITS

AGRICULTURALPRACTICES

Wildlife-friendly farming

– Integration

– Reduction in use of agro-chemicals & retention of patches of natural vegetation

Land Sparing

– Separation

– Concentration of production in areas as small as possible by maximizing yield

Minimizing the Impact of Agriculture on Biodiversity?

What Approach does Conservation Favour?

ConservationCotton

Initiative

Coffee And Farmer Equity

Above speci-fied treshold

No specifica-tion

No specification

Retention of patches of nat-ural vegetation

Efficient use

Minimum or prohibited use

Controlled

Allowed if not in areas of high value, or no spec-ification

Yield

Pesticides & herbicides

On-farm biodiversity

Land clearance

What Approach does Conservation Favour?

Species-specific response

– ‘agriculturaly naive’ species in developping countries

Requires large areas

– Low yield

– Production of organic inputs

– Possibility of displacement

– Land reserves exhausted by 2050

Limits of Wildlife-Friendly Farming

Crop

land

Biof

uel c

rops

Grazin

g land

Urban

exp

ansio

n

Indu

ctria

l for

estry

Prot

ecte

d ar

eas

Land

deg

rada

tion

0

2

4

6 Minimum

Maximum

Annual addit

ional la

nd (

Mha)

(from Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011)

Elastic demand for food crops

Shift to other crops

Economic attractants

Far-reaching impacts of agro-chemicals

Poor access to the required knowledge and capital

Limits of Land Sparing

Philosophy

Threat

– Intensification vs. expansion

Species of interest

Landscape

– Topography, productivity, ‘spatial grain’

Socio-economic factors

– Land pressure, endowment, technological options, markets, policies

What Criteria to Take into Consideration ?

Den

sity

Rel

ativ

e to

In

tact

Nat

ura

l H

abit

at

Yield

1

0

Species better suited toWildlife-Friendly Farming

Species better suitedto Land Sparing

Yield-Density Function

(from Green et al., 2005)

What are Conservation’s Flagship Species?

WCSWWF CI TNC0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Large- and medium-sized ver-tebratesOthers

Pro

port

ion o

f te

rrestr

ial fl

agship

speci

es

WCSWWF CI TNC0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Top predators and megaher-bivoresOthers

Pro

port

ion o

f te

rrestr

ial fl

agship

speci

es

WCSWWF CI TNC0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tropical and sub-trop-icalOthers

Pro

port

ion o

f te

rrestr

ial fl

agship

speci

es

Sensitivity of Mega-fauna to Human Impact

(Surrovell et al., 2005)

(Steadman et al., 2005)

Africa Australia Europe North America

South America

0

20

40

60

80

Generi

c ext

inct

ion

(%)

0.01 - 5 5 - 100 100 - 1000 > 10000

20

40

60

80

100

Body mass range (kg)

Generi

c ext

inct

ion

(%)

Resource use efficiency

– ‘Biomass tradeoffs’

Habitat connectivity

– Soft matrix, corridors, etc

Improving the economics

– Taking into account ecosystem services

Supporting policies

General Principles

(from Barnosky, 2008)

(from Fischer et al., 2008)

Conservation organizations and agriculture:

– Low investment

– Biais towards wildlife-friendy farming

Pragmatism and flexibility

We need to better understand:

– The tradeoffs between production and other ecosystem services (Kareiva et al., 2007)

– the necessary mix and levels of capitals (natural, social, etc) required for resilient socio-ecological systems (Abel et al., 2006)

Conclusion

THANK YOU