Land sparing to make space for species dependent on natural habitats and high nature value farmland

Risk-appropriate regulations for gene-editing technologies

This paper explores the scope for the newly emerging technologies, based on gene editing (GE) contributing to addressing the global challenges that we face. These challenges relate to food security, climate change and biodiversity depletion. In particular, it examines the science and evidence behind the most appropriate forms of agricultural production to meet these challenges, the targets set in the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) agreed to at the end of 2022 and the possible role of GE technologies in contributing to meeting these targets. It then examines the most risk-appropriate regulatory environment required to best facilitate the adoption of GE technology, drawing on the experiences of the impact of regulatory systems for other innovations used in agricultural and food production systems such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Land-use change from market responses to oil palm intensification in Indonesia

Oil palm is a major driver of tropical deforestation. A key intervention proposed to reduce the footprint of oil palm is intensifying production to free up spare land for nature, yet the indirect land-use implications of intensification through market forces are poorly understood. We used a spatially explicit land-rent modeling framework to characterize the supply and demand of oil palm in Indonesia under multiple yield improvement and demand elasticity scenarios and explored how shifts in market equilibria alter projections of crop expansion. Oil palm supply was sensitive to crop prices and yield improvements. Across all our scenarios, intensification raised agricultural rents and lowered the effectiveness of reductions in crop expansion. Increased yields lowered oil palm prices, but these price-drops were not sufficient to prevent further cropland expansion from increased agricultural rents under a range of price elasticities of demand. Crucially, we found that agricultural intensification might only result in land being spared when the demand relationship was highly inelastic and crop prices were very low (i.e., a 70% price reduction). Under this scenario, the extent of land spared (∼0.32 million ha) was countered by the continued establishment of new plantations (∼1.04 million ha). Oil palm intensification in Indonesia could exacerbate current pressures on its imperiled biodiversity and should be deployed with stronger spatial planning and enforcement to prevent further cropland expansion.

Long-term relationships of beef and dairy cattle and greenhouse gas emissions: Application of co-integrated panel models for Latin America

The cattle sector plays a pivotal role in the economies of numerous Latin American and Caribbean countries. However, it also exerts a significant impact on environmental degradation, including substantial contributions to greenhouse gas emissions (accounting for 23.5 % of global livestock emissions) and deforestation (70 % attributed to livestock in South America). This article aims to investigate the complex, long-term, and short-term relationships between population growth, pastureland expansion, deforestation, and the cattle sector in 15 countries across the region, focusing on their effects on greenhouse gas emissions as well as beef and dairy production. Utilizing data from FAOSTAT spanning the period from 1990 to 2019, a cointegrated panel model was developed using the Pooled Mean Group technique, resulting in the estimation of six models. The aggregate-level results for the region reveal the presence of relatively stable long-term relationships. This implies that over time, the influence of population growth, pastureland expansion, and deforestation on greenhouse gas emissions from cattle production tends to diminish in significance. This long-term behavior may be particularly pronounced in countries with more developed cattle sectors, where efforts to mitigate the environmental impacts of cattle production, such as promoting improved forage technologies, silvo-pastoral systems, grazing management practices, and the implementation of policies, regulatory frameworks, and incentives, have gained traction. These progressive countries can serve as regional benchmarks, and the lessons they have learned hold valuable insights for the sustainable intensification of cattle production in countries with less-developed cattle sectors.

Could global norms enable definition of sustainable farming systems in a transformative international trade system?

This paper aims to support differentiation between sustainable and unsustainable agricultural production, with a view to enabling a transformative agricultural trade system by incentivizing sustainable agricultural production. We argue that transformative governance of corresponding global trade flows will need to provide support to the weaker participants in production systems, above all small-scale farmers in the global South, in order to support their food security and a path out of poverty as well as global environmental goals. The present article seeks to provide an overview of internationally agreed norms that can serve as basis for differentiation between sustainable and unsustainable agricultural systems. Such common objectives and benchmarks could then be used in multilateral and binational trade agreements. We propose a list of objectives, criteria, and benchmarks that could contribute to formulation of new trade agreements that strengthen producers who are currently marginalized in international trade flows. While acknowledging that sustainability cannot be easily measured and defined for all site-specific conditions, we posit that it is nevertheless possible to identify such common objectives and benchmarks, based on internationally agreed norms.

The role of soil in regulation of climate

The soil carbon (C) stock, comprising soil organic C (SOC) and soil inorganic C (SIC) and being the largest reservoir of the terrestrial biosphere, is a critical part of the global C cycle. Soil has been a source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the dawn of settled agriculture about 10 millenia ago. Soils of agricultural ecosystems are depleted of their SOC stocks and the magnitude of depletion is greater in those prone to accelerated erosion by water and wind and other degradation processes. Adoption of judicious land use and science-based management practices can lead to re-carbonization of depleted soils and make them a sink for atmospheric C. Soils in humid climates have potential to increase storage of SOC and those in arid and semiarid climates have potential to store both SOC and SIC. Payments to land managers for sequestration of C in soil, based on credible measurement of changes in soil C stocks at farm or landscape levels, are also important for promoting adoption of recommended land use and management practices. In conjunction with a rapid and aggressive reduction in GHG emissions across all sectors of the economy, sequestration of C in soil (and vegetation) can be an important negative emissions method for limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2°C This article is part of the theme issue 'The role of soils in delivering Nature's Contributions to People'.

Cloud/edge computing for compliance in the Brazilian livestock supply chain

Brazil is an important player in the global agribusiness markets, in which grain and beef make up the majority of exports. Barriers to access more valuable sustainable markets emerge from the lack of adequate compliance in supply chains. Here is depicted a mobile application based on cloud/edge computing for the livestock supply chain to circumvent that limitation. The application, called BovChain, is a peer-to-peer (P2P) network connecting landowners and slaughterhouses. The objective of the application is twofold. Firstly, it maximizes sustainable business by reducing transaction costs and by strengthening ties between state-authorized stakeholders. Secondly, it creates metadata useful for digital certification by exploiting CMOS and GPS sensor technologies embedded in low-cost smartphones. Successful declarative transactions in the digital space are recorded as metadata, and the corresponding big data might be valuable for the certification of livestock origin and traceability for sustainability compliance in 'glocal' beef markets.

Producing wood at least cost to biodiversity: integrating Triad and sharing-sparing approaches to inform forest landscape management

Forest loss and degradation are the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide. Rising global wood demand threatens further damage to remaining native forests. Contrasting solutions across a continuum of options have been proposed, yet which of these offers most promise remains unresolved. Expansion of high-yielding tree plantations could free up forest land for conservation provided this is implemented in tandem with stronger policies for conserving native forests. Because plantations and other intensively managed forests often support far less biodiversity than native forests, a second approach argues for widespread adoption of extensive management, or 'ecological forestry', which better simulates natural forest structure and disturbance regimes - albeit with compromised wood yields and hence a need to harvest over a larger area. A third, hybrid suggestion involves 'Triad' zoning where the landscape is divided into three sorts of management (reserve, ecological/extensive management, and intensive plantation). Progress towards resolving which of these approaches holds the most promise has been hampered by the absence of a conceptual framework and of sufficient empirical data formally to identify the most appropriate landscape-scale proportions of reserves, extensive, and intensive management to minimize biodiversity impacts while meeting a given level of demand for wood. In this review, we argue that this central challenge for sustainable forestry is analogous to that facing food-production systems, and that the land sharing-sparing framework devised to establish which approach to farming could meet food demand at least cost to wild species can be readily adapted to assess contrasting forest management regimes. We develop this argument in four ways: (i) we set out the relevance of the sharing-sparing framework for forestry and explore the degree to which concepts from agriculture can translate to a forest management context; (ii) we make design recommendations for empirical research on sustainable forestry to enable application of the sharing-sparing framework; (iii) we present overarching hypotheses which such studies could test; and (iv) we discuss potential pitfalls and opportunities in conceptualizing landscape management through a sharing-sparing lens. The framework we propose will enable forest managers worldwide to assess trade-offs directly between conservation and wood production and to determine the mix of management approaches that best balances these (and other) competing objectives. The results will inform ecologically sustainable forest policy and management, reduce risks of local and global extinctions from forestry, and potentially improve a valuable sector's social license to operate.

Sparing land for secondary forest regeneration protects more tropical biodiversity than land sharing in cattle farming landscapes

Effectively managing farming to meet food demand is vital for the future of biodiversity.^1,2 Increasing yields on existing farmland can allow the abandonment (sparing) of low-yielding areas that subsequently recover as secondary forest.^2-5 A key question is whether such "secondary sparing" conserves biodiversity more effectively than retaining wildlife-friendly habitat within farmland ("land sharing"). Focusing on the Colombian Choco-Andes, a global hotspot of threatened biodiversity,⁶ and on cattle farming, we examined the outcomes of secondary sparing and land sharing via simulated scenarios that maintained constant landscape-wide production and equal within-pasture yield: (1) for species and functional diversity of dung beetles and birds; (2) for avian phylogenetic diversity; and (3) across different stages of secondary forest regeneration, relative to spared primary forests. Sparing older secondary forests (15-30 years recovery) promotes substantial species, functional, and phylogenetic (birds only) diversity benefits for birds and dung beetles compared to land sharing. Species of conservation concern had higher occupancy estimates under land-sparing compared to land-sharing scenarios. Spared secondary forests accumulated equivalent diversity to primary forests for dung beetles within 15 years and within 15-30 years for birds, highlighting the need for longer term protection to maximize the biodiversity gains of secondary sparing. Promoting the recovery and protection of large expanses of secondary forests under the land-sparing model provides a critical mechanism for protecting tropical biodiversity, with important implications for concurrently assisting in the delivery of global targets to restore 350 million hectares of forested landscapes.^7,8.

Land sparing to make space for species dependent on natural habitats and high nature value farmland

Empirical evidence from four continents indicates that human food demand may be best reconciled with biodiversity conservation through sparing natural habitats by boosting agricultural yields. This runs counter to the conservation paradigm of wildlife-friendly farming, which is influential in Europe, where many species are dependent on low-yielding high nature value farmland threatened by both intensification and abandonment. In the first multi-taxon population-level test of land-sparing theory in Europe, we quantified how population densities of 175 bird and sedge species varied with farm yield across 26 squares (each with an area of 1 km²) in eastern Poland. We discovered that, as in previous studies elsewhere, simple land sparing, with only natural habitats on spared land, markedly out-performed land sharing in its effect on region-wide projected population sizes. However, a novel 'three-compartment' land-sparing approach, in which about one-third of spared land is assigned to very low-yield agriculture and the remainder to natural habitats, resulted in least-reduced projected future populations for more species. Implementing the three-compartment model would require significant reorganization of current subsidy regimes, but would mean high-yield farming could release sufficient land for species dependent on both natural and high nature value farmland to persist.