Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Frédéric BaudronCIMMYT Ethiopia
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
