Biodiversity Can Be Protected Through Sustainable Agriculture and Suitable Habitats

In a literature review, FiBL showed that protecting biodiversity requires both sustainably managed agricultural landscapes and suitable, undisturbed habitats.

Biodiversity conservation at the landscape level is a key issue in sustainable land use. Many countries have developed concepts and measures to this end, such as Switzerland with its ‘Swiss Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan’. However, there is controversy over the best way to achieve this. In the context of agriculture, two opposing approaches often compete.

One calls for intensive production on less land, so that more unused land can be preserved as natural areas to promote biodiversity. Production and biodiversity conservation are kept as separate as possible (“land sparing”). The other approach emphasises the value of a landscape where sustainable agriculture and biodiversity promotion are closely interlinked on agroecological production and near-natural areas (“land sharing”).

The ideological debate on “land sparing” and “land sharing” is not constructive

This debate is often conducted using ideological arguments and entrenched positions, resulting in two sides that lead to very different recommendations for action. Some also argue that the debate does not do justice to the complexity of the topic and is not productive. Nevertheless, it remains a topic of discussion in sustainable agriculture and biodiversity policy. FiBL has therefore systematically compiled and analysed the available empirical studies on this topic. This clarifies the facts and contributes to a more constructive discussion.

The data available is sparse and irregular – important aspects are missing

There are only a few studies that present comparisons of the two strategies based on comprehensive field data. Of the 57 studies identified as relevant in the paper, only 17 provide the data needed to compare the strategies. The other 40 studies lack important aspects.

The studies focus on only one or a few animal or plant species groups, and the studies as a whole are also one-sided: 19 of the 27 comparisons included in the complete studies consider tropical forest birds, six consider various plants, and only two consider insects or soil organisms. Studies on microbes and fungi are missing entirely.

Furthermore, only a limited number of biodiversity indicators are covered. Most studies looked at species density (22 of the 27 complete comparisons). Analyses of species diversity, functional diversity, and other biodiversity indicators are lacking.

Biodiversity requires sustainably managed land and undisturbed habitats

The results of the 17 studies that allow a true comparison of sharing and sparing show that in 50 percent of cases, a context-specific combination of the two strategies delivers the best results for promoting biodiversity. Sparing is better in 40 percent of cases, but these cases mainly concern forest birds that require contiguous, near-natural habitats, which are often lacking in agricultural landscapes. Sharing is better in 10 percent of cases. Biodiversity, therefore, depends on both undisturbed habitats and sustainably managed landscapes.

The 40 studies with incomplete data primarily lack information on the type of agricultural production and yields. Without this information, it is not possible to assess which areas are farmed with what intensity in each strategy, to evaluate not only the advantages and disadvantages for biodiversity, but also agricultural production.

A focus on “sparing” with intensively used agricultural land is not a solution

The assessment of sharing and sparing strategies for promoting biodiversity at the landscape level must be carried out in a broader context. Intensive agriculture, characterised by high pesticide and fertiliser use, can deliver high yields but has significant negative impacts on biodiversity at the field level, in the landscape, and in water bodies. There is also a risk that yields will decline due to soil health loss and erosion. Extensive or organic farming, with its agroecological approaches, is good for biodiversity but is associated with lower yields.

It is essential to address the entire food system

We can use the aspects of sparing and sharing at the landscape level together and sustainably without jeopardising food security. However, this means considering productive, sustainable, biodiversity-friendly agriculture on limited land in a systemic context.

What is produced then becomes just as important as how it is produced: are we producing food or waste? In industrialised countries, one-third of production is wasted. Are we producing feed or food? In the European Union, feed is grown on 60 percent of arable land. With consistent waste reduction and targeted use of arable land for food production, all can be achieved: food security with sustainable agriculture and biodiversity protection.