This document summarizes an academic seminar on integrating food security and biodiversity conservation. It discusses limitations of existing frameworks like land sparing/sharing and sustainable intensification. A literature review identified clusters of approaches, with biophysical-technological clusters dominating. The talk advocates a more holistic, social-ecological approach. Current research is using questionnaires, systems mapping and a case study in Ethiopia to better understand relationships between social, economic and environmental factors influencing food security and biodiversity.

1. Food Biodiversity
?
Prof. Joern Fischer
Email: jfischer@leuphana.de Blog: http://ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @ideas4sust
Beyond land sparing and sharing:
a social-ecological approach to integrate food and biodiversity

2. Food security and biodiversity conservation
Two key challenges: food security and biodiversity conservation
How to achieve both?
Many opinions, responses and discussions
Two of the most prominent frameworks advocated:
1. Land sparing vs land sharing
(e.g. Green et al. 2005; Fischer et al. 2008/2011/2014; Phalan et al. 2012; Wright et al. 2012)
2. “Sustainable intensification”:
(e.g. Foley et al. 2012; Garnett et al. 2013; Hanspach et al. 2013; Loos et al. 2014)

3. Two of the most prominent frameworks to date
Land sparing/sharing:
If species are sensitive to all agriculture = land sparing
If species can handle low-intensity agriculture = land sharing
Sustainable intensification is typically defined as producing
more per unit area without adverse effects on the environment
We will re-visit these concepts later on
Phalan et al. 2011, Science

4. Outline of today’s seminar
Image source: http://www.interpares.ca/photos/globeapple.gif
Findings from a literature review on food & biodiversity
Limitations of land sparing and sustainable intensification
Ways forward:
Integration across different framings
Social-ecological approaches
Example: new research, partly in Ethiopia

5. Glamann et al. 2016, Regional Environmental Change
Food security & biodiversity conservation: overview
Much discussion, but including a lot of controversy
We reviewed 91 papers from the last five years, searching for
meaningful combinations of the terms “food security” and
“biodiversity conservation”
Papers were coded according to > 50 criteria so that groups of
similar approaches could be identified
Aim:
to obtain an overview of different approaches, and find ways to
bring these together in the future

6. Food security & biodiversity conservation: overview
Biophysical-
technological cluster
Social-political
cluster
I’ll go through these one by one

7. “Defining better targets for more
environmentally sustainable intensification
of production must address the whole food
production and distribution system.
Although we focus primarily on the
production sector, it is also critical to
recognise that other efficiencies in the
global food system could boost food
availability […]. For example, significant
amounts of food are lost in storage or
distribution”
(Cunningham et al., 2013, p. 23)
Image: ifad.org
Cluster 1: Sustainable intensification

8. Cluster 2: Production focus
“First, the transformation of agriculture must deliver sufficient food and
nutrition to the world. To meet the projected demands of population
growth and increasing consumption, we must roughly double food
supplies in the next few decades”
(Foley et al., 2011, p. 338).
Image: uctv.tv

9. Cluster 3: Social-ecological development
“Technological innovation is necessary but not sufficient to achieve food
security. This article uses interlinked social, ecological and technical
systems theory to investigate why agricultural biodiversity-rich
developing countries fail to utilize ‘agroecological competence’”
(Pant, 2014 p. 336)
Image: un.org

10. Cluster 4: Empowerment for food security
Image: www.glenwoodgarden.com
“Top-down solutions for reducing tropical deforestation [ref.] or for
enhancing food security [ref.] do not assure success without bottom-up
efforts to identify solutions appropriate to particular places. Research to
identify effective modes of engagement between scientists and decision-
makers working at different scales of governance (e.g., international,
national, state, and community) and analyses (e.g., global, watershed,
patch) is an important frontier”
(DeFries et al., 2012, p. 604)

11. Cluster 5: Agroecology and food sovereignty
“Agroecology-based production
systems are biodiverse, resilient,
energetically efficient, socially just,
and comprise the basis of an energy,
productive and food sovereignty
strategy”
(Altieri et al., 2012, p. 2)
Image: www.geneticliteracyproject.org

12. Cluster 6: Social-ecological systems
“More diverse (agro-)ecosystems
tend to show higher socioecological
resilience to disturbances and
unforeseen events [ref.].
Multispecies cropping systems can
enhance soil fertility, diminish losses
due to pathogens and pests, and
help farmers adapt to changing
environmental, socio-cultural, and
market conditions”
(Pautasso et al. 2013, p. 153).
Image: www.sapecs.org/

13. Food security & biodiversity conservation: overview
Biophysical-
technological cluster
Social-political
cluster
I went through these one by one

14. The dominant discourse is too narrow
Barrett 2010, Science
Average “impact” biophysical-technological branch: 8.03
Average “impact” social-political branch: 3.27
But more food production is not equal to more food security

15. The dominant discourse is too narrow
Barrett 2010, Science
Let’s re-visit two of the most popular themes
(both are in the biohysical-technological branch):
(1) land sparing/sharing and (2) sustainable intensification

16. Land sparing versus land sharing?
For a given level of agricultural yield:
If species are sensitive to all agriculture = land sparing
If species can handle low-intensity agriculture = land sharing
(this was originally termed “wildlife-friendly farming”
Phalan et al. 2011, Science

17. Five points of friction
1. Different discourses on “food”
2. The benefits and limitations of trade-off analysis
3. The measurement of biodiversity
4. Scale issues
5. Framing problems
(for details, see Fischer et al. 2014, Conservation Letters)
Image source: http://www.mikecurtis.org.uk/images/friction.jpg

18. Five points of friction
1. Different discourses on “food”
2. The benefits and limitations of trade-off analysis
3. The measurement of biodiversity
4. Scale issues
5. Framing problems
(for details, see Fischer et al. 2014, Conservation Letters)
Image source: http://www.mikecurtis.org.uk/images/friction.jpg

20. A critique of the focus on food production
“In a world where obesity and hunger co-occur, it seems beside the
point to argue about yield increases” (Chappell and LaValle 2011)
http://www.pthbb.org/natural/footprint/img/cartogram.gif

21. Framing problems
In an effort to be “objective”, many natural scientists fall into the trap
of logical positivism
Definition: A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of
statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on
observable data are meaningless. (www.thefreedictionary.com)
How we frame problems changes how we solve them
The trade-off between wild nature versus food
The synergies of farmland biodiversity with ecosystem services
Fostering production with minimal harm to biodiversity
Fostering food security by harnessing biodiversity
…

22. Framing problems
http://johnvandermeer.blogspot.de/2011/09/ideology-and-landsparing-versus.html
Taken from John Vandermeer’s blog site

23. Framing problems
Ideological positions cannot be avoided, but such positions should
be openly discussed, rather than hidden behind an untouchable veil
of (unattainable) “objectivity”
A production-oriented framing is not inherently more objective
Worldview
Preferred
analytical
frame

24. Sharing & sparing
… appropriate policy action will depend
upon a range of historical and
socioeconomic factors. It will also
differ between landscapes with a long
history of agriculture and “frontier
landscapes” undergoing rapid land
conversion. … Rather than seeing
wildlife-friendly farming and land
sparing as mutually exclusive options
for land management, it should be
recognized that both offer different,
and sometimes complementary
advantages.
Fischer et al. 2008. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment.

25. What about “sustainable intensification”?
Hanspach et al. 2013, Science; Loos et al., 2014

26. What about “sustainable intensification”?
Hanspach et al. 2013, Science; Loos et al., 2014

27. A more holistic approach is needed
Can we get advocates of “sustainable intensification”
and “agroecology & food sovereignty” to join forces?

28. Fischer et al., 2015
A more holistic approach is needed

29. Research in progress
Funded by the European Research Council (ERC)
Social-Ecological
System PropertiesBiodiversity
FoodSecurity
• Capital assets (social,
human, financial,
physical, natural)
• Socioeconomic and
ethnic composition
• Crop diversity
• Role of women
• Agrochemical inputs
• Native vegetation
prevalence and size of
“spared” areas
• Field sizes
• Foreign ownership
• Imports and exports
… and others!

30. Research in progress
Funded by the European Research Council (ERC)
Social-Ecological
System PropertiesBiodiversity
FoodSecurity
• Capital assets (social,
human, financial,
physical, natural)
• Socioeconomic and
ethnic composition
• Crop diversity
• Role of women
• Agrochemical inputs
• Native vegetation
prevalence and size of
“spared” areas
• Field sizes
• Foreign ownership
• Imports and exports
… and others!
Global
(n > 50)
Global
(n = 15 to 20)
Landscape
(n = 1)
Expert questionnaires
Correlative, general
WP 1
Systems mapping
Dynamics, causalities
WP 2
Empirical case study
In-depth, complexities
WP 3-5
WP 6 Integration
WP 7 Management(Human and animal ethics)

31. Conceptual framework
Wittman et al., in review

32. Questionnaire directed at experts worldwide
Visit
foodandbiodiversity.wordpress.com
to participate!
Outcome: Correlative but general understanding of
relationships between key system properties, food security,
biodiversity

33. Worldwide systems mapping
Systems mapping workshops
15-20 workshops in selected systems
Focus on systems dynamics
and interactions between variables
Integration of workshops
Typical or “archetype” dynamics?
Typical leverage points?
Outcome: Understanding of the dynamics typically influencing
biodiversity and food security

34. In-depth case study in Ethiopia
Ethiopia has been selected because of
Large rural population
Ongoing food security problems
High but declining biodiversity
Project partners:
Feyera Senbeta (Addis Ababa),
Kristoffer Hylander (Stockholm)
Outcome: in-depth systems understanding = “reality check”
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/lgcolor/etcolor.gif

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37

38. STUDY AREA
Farmland
Woody Veg.
Six kebeles
... differing in ...
Vegetation
Altitude
Food security
Kebele
Jimma Zone

39. Kele Harari 83
Med FiS; low-high Elev
Boricho Deka 74%
High FiS; Low Elev
Guido Bere 33%
High Elev
Bereweringo 4%
Med FiS; High Elev
Kuda Kefo 39%
MedLow FiS; High Elev
Difo Mani 33%
MedLow FiS; low Elev
Coffee Coffee
Coffee Coffee
EXTRA

40. Integration by place, case, and process
1. Choosing the place worth studying (problem-inspired)
= here, from both a biodiversity & food security perspective
2. Defining study cases/units, for all disciplines
= here, kebeles and households
3. Establishing flexible processes for ongoing integration:
- Emphasis on small-team work
- Frequent, informal communication
- Shared offices
- Scenario planning workshops & other stakeholder activities
as time goes on
On integration, see Fischer et al. 2014 – Basic & Applied Ecology

41. Ecological assessment in the case study
Mapping land cover and yield gaps Biodiversity surveys and models
Comparisons with less modified areas Ecosystem service bundlesSchulthessetal.2013
Fischeretal.,2010,PNAS
Hanspachetal.,
Ecology&Society

42. Some of the ecological questions
1. How is biodiversity affected by increasing agricultural yields?
2. How is biodiversity affected by increasing coffee yields?
3. How do field-level yield gaps influence biodiversity compared to
landscape-level yield gaps?
4. How does biodiversity in remote forest – including forest mammals
– compare to biodiversity in the farmland?
5. What kinds of benefits do people obtain from the forest – and what
kinds of dis-benefits?
6. How do these benefits and dis-benefits influence people’s attitude
towards forest conservation?

43. Social assessment in the case study
Actor and network analysis Governance analysis
Livelihoods assets Food flows and bundles
Univ.ofMichigan
www.unescap.org/
www.heemskerk.sr.org/
UnitedNationsUniversity

44. Some of the social questions
1. Which actors are involved in biodiversity conservation vs. food
security?
2. Is there sufficient interaction between these actors?
3. To what extent does current governance support the
implementation of land sparing versus land sharing?
4. How do livelihood strategies, crop diversity, and food security
interact at the household level?
5. How do livelihood strategies, crop diversity and food security differ
for female-headed households?
6. What are the effects of smallholder commercialisation on food
security?

45. Conclusions & outlook
Biophysical-
technological cluster
Social-political
cluster

46. Conclusions & outlook
Wittman et al., in review

47. Conclusions & outlook
The intersection of food security and biodiversity conservation has
been addressed in different ways
Dominant approach has been production-focused
Instead, I propose a social-ecological systems approach
This includes looking at system properties that are uncomfortable
but probably important – e.g. education, demography or gender
It also means looking “deeper” and admitting that often, our systems
are not even designed for either conservation or food security
(but, for example, for profit maximisation or economic growth)

48. Based on Meadows (1999); thanks to Dave Abson for the slide
No material change without mental change

49. Thank you & questions
Thanks for funding to the European Research Council
Thanks to my many collaborators – and to you, for listening!
Please contact me to receive copies of my papers: jfischer@leuphana.de
You can follow my blog: http://ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com/
“… starvation is the characteristic
of some people not having enough
food to eat. It is not the
characteristic of there not being
enough food to eat. While the
latter can be a cause of the
former, it is but one of many
possible causes” (Sen 1981)
Image source: http://claudioesilvia.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/sen1.jpg