Land sparing, sharing or a combination?
Australia’s land is under increasing pressure from many different angles.
The country needs land for agricultural production, but there are also compelling reasons to look at how land is used to protect biodiversity and mitigate climate change while ensuring adequate water is available.
Should land managers practise ‘wildlife-friendly’ farming that supports a variety of plants and animals within the farmland itself?
Or is it better to farm intensively on certain sections of land and leave greater areas of natural habitat untouched?
These approaches are sometimes referred to as land ‘sharing’ and land ‘sparing’, respectively. Whether to prioritise one or the other, and indeed whether they should be viewed as counterposed to each other, are complex issues subject to debate.
Climateworks Centre’s recently published report Australia’s land use future has added to the conversation about different approaches to achieve multiple objectives in agricultural landscapes.
Here, we explore what is meant by land sharing and land sparing, why this debate matters and opportunities for navigating this contested space.
Land sparing versus land sharing
Land sparing is often used to describe approaches that boost the productivity of existing farmland to ‘free up’ land for other purposes, including creating larger tracts of native ecosystems and storing carbon.
Land-sparing approaches aim to reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture, often through more intensive production systems supported by technological solutions.
Land sharing refers to agricultural systems that aim to balance environmental outcomes with agricultural productivity. This includes farming methods that apply ecological principles to agricultural production, such as regenerative agriculture.
Regardless of which approach is favoured, it should be acknowledged that ecosystem health is vital for agricultural productivity, from supporting pollinators and healthy soils to increasing resilience to climate extremes.
A matter of definitions
The debate is partly fuelled by unclear definitions of the types of agricultural management that constitute land sharing.
For instance, there is a lack of consensus around the processes and/or outcomes that characterise regenerative agriculture.
In addition, modern practices that drive productivity and protect ecosystems at the same time can blur the distinction between land sharing and land sparing. For example:
- Technologies such as controlled-release fertilisers in intensive systems can have both productivity and direct environmental benefits, such as lowering emissions and runoff into waterways.
- Precision agriculture techniques associated with intensive systems, such as technologies that better match fertilisers to crop or pasture requirements, can be integrated into regenerative systems that support biodiversity.
The challenges of measuring outcomes
Uncertainty around biodiversity, productivity and the climate impacts of different strategies complicates understanding of their benefits and potential trade-offs.
Firstly, the way biodiversity benefits are assessed matters.
Some animals, such as woodland birds and frogs, can flourish within agricultural landscapes that include native vegetation and farm dams with vegetation and controlled stock access.
Others, including many endangered species, depend on large areas of intact native ecosystems.
Whether land sharing or land sparing is the best approach will depend on the relative importance placed on different biodiversity objectives.
Secondly, productivity outcomes can be highly variable.
While many land-sharing practices can reduce environmental impacts, their effects on agricultural production differ. This makes it difficult to estimate how much land might be needed to maintain production levels under different management approaches.The productivity benefits of some land-sharing approaches may also take many years to become apparent.
When land-sharing techniques can occur with the same, or even more production, there are no trade-offs between the two approaches. Land sharing leads to land sparing as well. This is why some people question whether it is appropriate to view these approaches as counterposed.
Lastly, climate outcomes can also be difficult to assess.
Many land-sharing approaches aim to increase soil carbon. There is strong evidence of the benefits of soil carbon for farming systems.
But the evidence that management to increase soil carbon translates into climate mitigation benefits is not clear-cut.
Soil carbon levels vary across landscapes and with climatic changes, so detecting changes linked to management practices can be difficult and expensive.
The human factor
How people think about and value land also influences how these different approaches are viewed.
Improvements in agricultural productivity do not necessarily result in reduced amounts of land used for agriculture.
These doubts about land sparing relate to Jevon’s paradox. This economic observation states that increasing the efficiency of a resource can lead to increased consumption, because the lower cost stimulates demand. This could lead to the expansion of agricultural land despite increased production efficiency.
To ensure that productivity improvements associated with land sparing actually lead to a ‘land dividend’, natural areas need to be adequately valued to ensure economic viability for landholders.
Different stakeholders may also have different priorities for landscapes. For instance, supply chains and national governments may lean toward land sparing to create larger tracts of native vegetation and store more carbon.
In contrast, local communities and agroecological advocates often champion land sharing to meet multiple local objectives, including diversifying income streams for landowners and preserving local identity and community.
This means there are varying perceptions of the trade-offs of either strategy both within and across different groups, such as those representing biodiversity conservation, First Nations peoples, community, farmers, industry and government departments.
Balancing multiple objectives across landscapes
Climateworks’ Australia’s land use future report recommends the development of a land-use framework to support a more integrated approach to decisions impacting land use.
Our land-use modelling suggests strategies that promote land sparing (including improvements in agricultural efficiency) and land sharing (such as the integration of riparian plantings and shelterbelts) are complementary and equally important. Yet their relative importance can depend on the location.
Developing a framework that leads to better-informed land-use decisions will involve effectively incorporating the perspectives and values of a range of people and organisations.
This process will need to be underpinned by rigorous science, including relevant data and use of scenario and land-use modelling to understand the opportunities and trade-offs associated with different contexts and decisions.
Using complementary models and tools and drawing on local knowledge, including that of First Nations, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of these opportunities and trade-offs.
The challenges of protecting native ecosystems, storing carbon, rolling out renewable energy and producing agriculture are real.
What’s needed now is a broad, iterative process that incorporates the views and values of all those involved.
Combined with smart scenario development based on robust data and modelling, this can deliver a co-designed solution to Australia’s land use that will last.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
