Wageningen, 26 March 2015

Frédéric Baudron,

CIMMYT-Ethiopia

Revisiting the Borlaug hypothesis& alternative approaches to manage the

agriculture-nature interface

Norman Borlaug

1970: Recipient of the Nobel

Peace Price

1964: Director of CIMMYT’s

Wheat Program

‘Father of the Green Revolution’(Mexico, India, Pakistan)

CIMMYT’s icon ever since

0

1

2

3

4

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Ma

ize

yie

ld (

t h

a-1

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Wh

ea

t yie

ld (

t h

a-1

)

India

Mexico

The Green Revolution

● High-yielding, ‘modern’ varieties of

wheat, rice and later maize

Morphology (short, many tillers, erect leave)

Traits (high yield potential, wide adaptation, etc)

● Accompanied by a suite of other

changes:

Technological changes (fertilizer, irrigation)

Changes in land use

Changes in the labor economy

● Positive outcomes:

Improved rural incomes (farmers and laborers)

Lower food prices

Transformed a number of developing countries

(e.g. India) from large food importers and recipients

of food aid into food secure countries

The Borlaug Hypothesis: Land Sparing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011

Mil

lio

n h

ec

tare

s

Mexico, maize

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011

Mil

lio

n h

ec

tare

s

Mexico, wheat

15.3 Mha

1.4 Mha

0

5

10

15

20

25

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011

Mil

lio

n h

ec

tare

s

Spared

Actual

India, maize

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011

Mil

lio

n h

ec

tare

s

India, wheat

13.6 Mha

81.6 Mha

Investing in Agriculture to Conserve

nature

● Protected areas are not sufficient(only 12% of all terrestrial land)

● Growing underfunding of protected

areas

● Species range shift due to climate

change

● Human population tends to be

concentrated in areas rich in

biodiversity

(from

Balmford et

al., 2001)

Agriculture is Expanding

● Additional 3 billion people by 2050

● Increase in global wealth and per

capita consumption

● Rising number of undernourished

people

● National food security… and political

stability

● Global demand for agricultural

products expected to double from

2005 to 2050 (Tilman et al., 2011)

Annual per capita dependence of caloric

demand and GDP (Tilman et al., 2011)

Food price and violent protests (Lagi et al.,

2011)

Cropland expansion in the

tropics and subtropics

Fate of remaining

biodiversity-rich areas?

(FAO, 2010)

Change in

Biodiversity

Altered

Ecosystem

Processes

Increased Flow of

Ecosystem Goods

& Services

Increased

Human Benefits

Change in

Species Traits

Negative Consequences of

Agriculture on Biodiversity

Change in

Biodiversity

Biotic Removals

& Additions

Altered

Ecosystem

Processes

Increased Flow of

Ecosystem Goods

& Services

Increased

Human Benefits

Change in

Species Traits

Negative Consequences of

Agriculture on Biodiversity

Altered

Biogeochemical

& Hydrological

Cycles

Change in

Biodiversity

Biotic Removals

& Additions

Altered

Ecosystem

Processes

Increased Flow of

Ecosystem Goods

& Services

Increased

Human Benefits

Change in

Species Traits

Negative Consequences of

Agriculture on Biodiversity

Altered

Biogeochemical

& Hydrological

Cycles

Change in

Biodiversity

Biotic Removals

& Additions

Altered

Disturbance

Regimes

Altered

Ecosystem

Processes

Increased Flow of

Ecosystem Goods

& Services

Increased

Human Benefits

Change in

Species Traits

Negative Consequences of

Agriculture on Biodiversity

Altered

Biogeochemical

& Hydrological

Cycles

Change in

Biodiversity

Biotic Removals

& Additions

Altered

Disturbance

Regimes

Altered

Ecosystem

Processes

Increased Flow of

Ecosystem Goods

& Services

Increased

Human Benefits

Change in

Species Traits

Altered Habitats

Negative Consequences of

Agriculture on Biodiversity

Altered

Biogeochemical

& Hydrological

Cycles

Change in

Biodiversity

Biotic Removals

& Additions

Altered

Disturbance

Regimes

Altered

Ecosystem

Processes

Increased Flow of

Ecosystem Goods

& Services

Increased

Human Benefits

Change in

Species Traits

Altered Habitats

Negative Consequences of

Agriculture on Biodiversity

Benefits of Land Sparing

● Country-level evidences of

spared land (in theory)

● Biodiversity: Ghana, India,

Uganda (e.g. Phalan et al., 2011;

Hulme et al., 2013)

● Intensification and climate

change mitigation

● Yield gaps

● Poverty traps (low level equilibrium)

(Mueller et al., 2012)

(Phalan et al., 2011)

● Land sparing is ‘imperfect’ (slower

growth, but not reduction in cultivted area)

Elastic demand for food crops

Subsidies

Shift to other crops

● Far-reaching impacts of agro-

chemicals

● Intensification may attract migrants

● Poor access to knowledge and

capital

● Poor transport and infrastructures

Limits to land Sparing

Rudel et al., 2009

Land Sharing as an alternative

(Wright et al., 2012)● Low external input use and retention

of patches of natural habitat

● Integration of land uses

● Dependency of many (open-habitat)

species on farmland

● Farmlands structurally similar to

native vegetation support high

biodiversity

Limits to Land Sharing

● Efficiency of large-scale national

program is very variable

● Organic inputs are scarce

● Extensive practices

Low yield

Extra land for the production of biomass and

manure

● Possibility of displacement

More the 1/3 of the food consumed by

Sweden in 1994 was imported 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Minimum Maximum

An

nu

al

ad

dit

ion

al la

nd

req

uir

ed

fo

r th

e p

eri

od

2000

-2030 (

Mh

a)

Land degradation

Protected areas

Urban expansion

(Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011)

Land Sparing or Sharing?

Based on What Criteria?

● Response of the species of interest

to farming intensity

Land Sparing or Sharing?

Based on What Criteria?(Baudron and Giller., 2014)

● Response of the species of interest

to farming intensity

● Scale and landscape-specific

circumstances

Topography, productivity, ‘spatial grain’

Land Sparing or Sharing?

Based on What Criteria?

● Response of the species of interest

to farming intensity

● Scale and landscape-specific

circumstances

Topography, productivity, ‘spatial grain’

● Threats to the species of interest

Intensification vs. expansion, contrast

farmland-natural vegetation

Land Sparing or Sharing?

Based on What Criteria?

● Response of the species of interest

to farming intensity

● Scale and landscape-specific

circumstances

Topography, productivity, ‘spatial grain’

● Threats to the species of interest

Intensification vs. expansion, contrast

farmland-natural vegetation

● Socio-economic factors

Land pressure, endowment, technological

options, markets, policies

Land Sparing or Sharing?

Based on What Criteria?

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?

● Producing differently

● Beyond the plot

● Beyond production

● Supportive markets and policies

● Towards multifunctional landscape mosaics

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Producing differently

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Producing differently

● Managing spillover effects

Conservation agriculture

‘Precision Agriculture’

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Producing differently

(Steffen et al., 2011)

● Managing spillover effects

Conservation agriculture

‘Precision Agriculture’

● Maintaining resilience

Stress tolerant varieties

Mixture of species/cultivars

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Producing differently

● Managing spillover effects

Conservation agriculture

‘Precision Agriculture’

● Maintaining resilience

Stress tolerant varieties

Mixture of species/cultivars

● Maintaining ecological interactions

Intra-guild interactions (resource partitioning, competition,

facilitation)

Trophic interactions (decomposers, predators, parasites)

Spatial dynamics (ecological subsidies) and temporal

dynamics (disturbance regime)

Stability by self organization

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond the plot

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond the plot

● Redesigning farming systems

at farm-level

Management of populations of

natural enemies

Facilitative interaction

Nutrient transfer

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Air

tem

per

atu

re (°

C)

Time of the day (h)

Outside canopy

Under canopy

0

20

40

60

80

1 10 30Nu

mb

er o

f ro

ve b

eetl

es

cap

ture

d

Distance to ensete field (m)

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond the plot

● Redesigning farming systems

at farm-level

Management of populations of

natural enemies

Facilitative interaction

Nutrient transfer

● Redesigning farming systems

at landscape-level

Collective action at territory level

Institutional innovation

(Baudron et al., submitted)

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond production

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond production

● Reduction of food losses and

wastes

Storage and cooling facilities

Transport from the farm to the market

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond production

● Reduction of food losses and

wastes

Storage and cooling facilities

Transport from the farm to the market

● Access to food

‘Food sovereignty’: equitable distribution and

local accessibility

Securing land tenure to smallholders

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Beyond production

● Reduction of food losses and

wastes

Storage and cooling facilities

Transport from the farm to the market

● Access to food

‘Food sovereignty’: equitable distribution and

local accessibility

Securing land tenure to smallholders

● Changes in consumption patterns

Discourage grain fed livestock

Discourage biofuel production that competes

with food crop production

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Supportive markets and policies

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Supportive markets and policies

● Valuing biodiversity, and returning this

value to farmers

Pricing (embodying the true costs and benefits of agricultural

practices) and labelling of commodities

Compensation (foregone use of land, disservices) and

rewards (PES)

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Supportive markets and policies

● Valuing biodiversity, and returning this

value to farmers

Pricing (embodying the true costs and benefits of agricultural

practices) and labelling of commodities

Compensation (foregone use of land, disservices) and

rewards (PES)

● Policy framework

Agri-environment payments to farmers

Policies that prevent deforestation & encourage

abandonment

Control of immigration in developing countries

Removal of perverse policies (e.g. subsidies)

Incentives that promote production and

consumption patterns that are less demanding in

NR

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Towards multifunctional landscape mosaics

Rela

tive

ab

un

dance

Crop productivty Livestock productivity

Fuelwood availability

Wild food

?

Rela

tive

ab

un

dance

Food system, nutrition

?

Rela

tive

ab

un

dance

Beyond Sparing vs Sharing?Towards multifunctional landscape mosaics

Natural ennemies Pollinators Hydrology Erosion control

Interactions between patches

Nutrient transfer

Conclusion

● Green Revolution: adapted to the context

of the 60s and 70s, but no longer the right

model

● Major move of CIMMYT towards

‘sustainable intensification’

● Agriculture as an opportunity for

conservation (not only a threat)

● Biodiversity as input to farming

● Expanding the partnership between

conservation organizations and

agricultural agencies

THANK YOU