My talk on land sparing versus land sharing, presented at #ECCB2012 in Glasgow

1. LAND
ARE SPARING
SLOSS CORRIDORS VS.
GOOD LAND
OR BAD? SHARING
Beyond a false dichotomy
Professor Joern Fischer
Email: jfischer@leuphana.de Blog: http://ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @ideas4sust
Image source: http://fernandezrip.blogspot.com/2011/07/rest-in-peace-fernandez.html

2. Outline
1. Problems within the debate
2. Problems about the debate
3. A few words on sustainable intensification
4. Moving on gracefully
Fischer et al. 2008. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

3. Problems within the debate: Polarisation
Why is this framed as two mutually exclusive options?
Compare SLOSS debate, corridors debate:
Polarised question yields heated, self-serving debates

4. Problems within the debate: Wrong conceptual basis
Motivated from the perspective of ―feeding the world‖
If this is the goal, primary problems relate to global equity issues,
female secondary education, fertility management (directly and
indirectly)
Why over-emphasise supply rather than distribution, food waste,
dietary habits?
“A defeated argument that refuses to be obliterated
can remain very alive.” (Amartya Sen)

5. Problems within the debate: Internal vagueness
Vagueness about:
What is to be spared?
Scale issues
Target species?
Where?

6. Problems about the debate: Overuse
If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail…
Green et al. (2005) showed
there may be a trade-off
b/w yields and biodiversity
This is useful conceptually!
But now being used a long
way beyond its conceptual
limits

7. Problems about the debate: Overuse
―… there are at least four reasons why conservationists should be
cautious about the idea that agriculture is a key element for
conservation in the developing world (or indeed anywhere)‖ –
Phalan et al. 2012, Conservation Letters
Source: http://www.cbd.int/images/map20.gif; Foley et al. 2007, PNAS

8. Resolving the debate: A first attempt
Fischer et al. 2008. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

9. Resolving the debate: A first attempt
The debate has hardened rather than matured
―Both social and biophysical factors influence which approach is
feasible or appropriate in a given landscape. Drawing upon the
strengths of each approach, we outline broad policy guidelines for
conservation in agricultural landscapes.‖ (Fischer et al. 2008)
Polarisation = self-serving = producing papers above all else
Fischer et al. 2008. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

10. Resolving the debate: A new attempt
This has little to do with science per se
All about worldviews, paradigms and ideologies underpinning
different types of science
Underlying premise:
Values => Goals => Solutions
Image source: http://corporatelifecoach.blogspot.de/2012/01/idealist-vs-realist.html

11. ‘Realist’ arguments
Yields must increase!
Global demand is taken as given and should be met
Policy makers seen as in need of advice, so they can optimize
decisions
Real-world decisions seen as coming from the top
Heavily rooted in quantitative frameworks, seeking to find
objective solutions to complex problems
Dispassionate analysis favoured (= a simple numbers game)
Firmly the realm of traditional natural science
Seeks improved empirical basis and more sophisticated models

12. ‘Idealist’ arguments
Yields are only a minor component of a much bigger problem!
Refusal to take anything as given – asking simply ―where do we
need to go‖?
Because these arguments routinely challenge status quo politics,
there is no particular emphasis on advising policy makers –
local bottom-up strategies believed to be important
Often heavily motivated by ethical, rather than purely scientific
interests
Many arguments are qualitative and not dispassionate
e.g. taking a stance on the political issue of food sovereignty
– no special value attributed to quantitative sophistication

13. ‘Realist’ arguments – working within the system
―Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally‖
(Phalan et al. 2011)
―Even with recent productivity gains, roughly one in seven people lack access to
food or are chronically malnourished, stemming from continued poverty and
mounting food prices…‖
[but focus then continues to gloss over distribution issues, emphasising instead quantity of food:]
―Our analysis demonstrates that four core strategies can—in principle—meet future
food production needs and environmental challenges if deployed simultaneously.
Adding them together, they increase global food availability by 100–180%, meeting
projected demands while lowering greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity losses,
water use and water pollution.‖ (Foley et al. 2011)
―Here, we forecast 2050 global crop demand and then quantitatively evaluate the
global impacts on land clearing‖ (Tilman et al. 2011)

14. ‘Idealist’ arguments – challenging the system
―In a world where obesity and hunger co-occur, it seems beside the point to argue
about yield increases‖ (Chappell and LaValle 2011)
―Food security and … sovereignty are needed where the hungry live, which is often
within a landscape matrix of ecosystems that are rich in biodiversity …. Hunger …
is not so much linked to the quantity of food … but to poverty...‖ (Tscharntke et al. 2012)
―The simple model by Phalan et al. ignores vital social and ecological complexities,
including rural livelihoods … Social and ecological complexities must not be an
afterthought in analyses about food and biodiversity, because they fundamentally
alter the outcome. Simple models must be balanced with holistic… approaches ...
Otherwise there is a great risk that internally consistent solutions are
overinterpreted as externally applicable by policy-makers… and the public.‖
(Fischer et al. 2011)

15. What about sustainable intensification?
Politically powerful but potentially ―empty‖
Win-wins should always be the first goal
But win-win seems unlikely in many settings
Just as vague
Just as political
Just as ―universal‖ in flavour

16. Moving on gracefully
Values & assumptions Should not be ignored
given the situation at hand The situation shapes what we
deem important
Goals & objectives Must be explicit, including
recognition of multiple trade-offs
given the situation at hand Reality severely constrains the set
of reasonable solutions
Solution No one-size-fits all solutions
Fischer et al. 2008. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

17. Back to the roots of our discipline
Michael Soulé in 1980s: conservation biology is normative, multi-
disciplinary and diverse
Michael Soulé in the 2000s: we need to appreciate and collaborate
with other ―life-affirming movements‖ (e.g. human rights, animal
rights, biodiversity rights)
Has conservation biology
lost its self-awareness?
Source: http://www.conservationgis.org/scgis/ScgNews1/graphics/soule1b.jpg

18. Conclusion
Michael Soulé in 1980s: conservation biology is normative, multi-
disciplinary and diverse
Michael Soulé in the 2000s: we need to appreciate and collaborate
with other ―life-affirming movements‖ (e.g. human rights, animal
rights, biodiversity rights)
Take-home messages:
1. We need to explicitly and consciously position ourselves in terms of
our values and objectives to avoid futile debates;
2. We need to appreciate conceptual models without over-using them;
3. There is (much) more to this problem than biodiversity and yields.

19. Acknowledgements
Thanks for funding to the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation
(Sofja Kovalevskaja Award 2010)
LAND
SPARING
Thanks to countless collaborators who VS.
LAND
have inspired and challenged me on SHARING
these issues
Thanks especially to those I disagree with
for listening