Win-win solutions for conservation and farming
In recent years, the concept of "win-win" solutions for environmental conservation and profitable farming has gained traction as a seemingly ideal way to balance competing interests. The idea is that by finding mutually beneficial solutions, conservation goals can be achieved while also promoting farm profitability. But is it really possible to balance conservation and food production in a way that truly benefits both? A recent meta-analysis spanning 43 studies across 18 countries found that the diversification of food production systems led to win-wins in only 23% of cases. In this blog post, we will examine the merits and limitations of win-win solutions for conservation and farming, going beyond the rhetoric to explore the realities of this approach.
What are win-wins for farming and conservation?
Win-wins are situations where environmental conservation, as well as farming businesses can benefit. They are often presented as mutually beneficial solutions where one goal is not achieved at the expense of the other. These solutions aim to balance competing interests by identifying opportunities for both conservation and farming to coexist and thrive. Some examples methods that aim to improve conservation and farming outcomes are reviewed in the following.
Agroforestry
This practice involves integrating trees into farming systems, which can improve biodiversity, soil health, water management, and carbon sequestration. Additionally, agroforestry can provide additional income for farmers through products such as fruits, nuts, and non-timber forest products. A meta analysis has shown that agroforestry can improve ecosystem services without sacrificing crop productivity. In contrast, many farming systems are deliberately simplified, such as broad acre cropping, in order to make use of highly specialised farming equipment.
Barriers to implementing agroforestry are the significant investment of time, money, and resources to establish and maintain a more complex and diverse farming system. Additionally, agroforestry may require changes to traditional farming practices and may not be well-suited to certain types of land or crops.
Conservation tillage
This practice involves reducing or eliminating the disturbance of soil through tillage, which can improve soil health, water retention, and biodiversity. Additionally, conservation tillage can reduce costs for farmers by reducing fuel and labour inputs. In Australia, no-till cropping began to gain popularity in the 1970s and 1980s as a way to address soil erosion and improve crop yields. Today, no-till cropping is widely adopted in Australia, and has been widely acknowledged to improve soil health, increase crop yields, and reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers. In contrast, conventional farming systems that rely on heavy tillage can lead to soil erosion and compaction which can negatively impact biodiversity and soil health.
Barriers to adopting conservation tillage include novel pests, such as earwigs, millipedes, slugs, and slaters, favoured by stubble retention. Thick stubble loads can also clog machinery used during the crop sowing.
Cover crops
Planting cover crops between cash crops can improve soil health, reduce erosion, and increase biodiversity. Conventional farming systems, in contrast, often leave fields barren between cash crops which can lead to erosion, soil compaction and loss of biodiversity. Cover crops can provide additional income for farmers through products such as forage, biofuel, and compost. Cover crops have been claimed to improve soil health, increase crop yields, and reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers. However, new research may suggest cover cropping can reduce corn and soybean yields in the US, and could lead to expanded cultivation and habitat loss to make up for the yield reductions.
Barriers to adopting cover cropping include uncertainty around improved farming outcomes, potential water loss through increased evapotranspiration, and additional management complexity surrounding multiple crops.
Integrated pest management (IPM)
This approach to pest control involves using a combination of methods to reduce pest populations, including biological control, cultural control, and minimal use of chemical pesticides. Conventional farming systems, in contrast, are heavily reliant on chemical pesticides that harm beneficial insects, and negatively impact biodiversity. Integrated pest management can reduce costs for farmers, while improving environmental outcomes through a reduced reliance on pesticide use. A meta analysis of 85 IPM projects spanning 24 countries found that mean yield increased across projects and crops by 40.9% (SD 72.3), while pesticide use declined to 30.7% (SD 34.9) compared with baseline. A total of 35 of 115 (30%) crop combinations resulted in a transition to zero pesticide use.
Barriers to the adoption of IPM include the increased complexity and knowledge requirements in managing diverse beneficial and pest species, as well as the uncertainty surrounding required beneficial abundances that will mitigate economic losses in production.
Buffer strips
This practice involves planting strips of vegetation, such as grasses or wildflowers, along the edges of fields and streams. In many conventional farming situations, cropping verges are left bare or support weeds. These buffer strips can improve water quality by reducing run off and erosion, and can also provide habitats for a variety of wildlife species.
Barriers to adoption include the added complexity of managing additional crops, and the inconsistent effects of non-crop habitats on pest and beneficial communities.
Adaptive multi-paddock grazing
This practice involves moving livestock to different pastures at different times to allow for rest and recovery of the land. Conventional practices, typically involve large paddock sizes, lower herd densities, and less frequent rotation. In adaptive multi-paddock grazing, multiple paddocks are used per herd with the goal of managing grazing resources to improve ecological function. This can result in improved soil health, biodiversity, and water management. Additionally, this method of grazing can improve animal health and increase milk and meat production. A overview of the approach and its benefits are available here.
Barriers to adoption include the increased complexity surrounding management of small paddocks and more frequent movement of stock. There is also significant controversy surrounding the scientific merits of similar grazing programs.
Sustainable intensification
This approach involves increasing crop yields and productivity through technologies such as precision agriculture, robotics, or genetic modification, while reducing environmental impacts such as pollution, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. As noted by Cassman and Grassini, while sustainable intensification is necessary to address environmental conservation goals, it is not sufficient because success in conserving natural habitat also requires good governance, appropriate legal frameworks for land tenure, and international agreements to ensure that progress towards sustainable intensification on existing farmland achieves desired environmental outcomes.
Barriers to wider adoption include the economic costs and knowledge required to implement technological solutions in farming.
Organic farming
Organic farming is an approach to agriculture that avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides widely used in conventional farming systems. Organic farming can improve environmental outcomes by reducing synthetic inputs and pollution, and through a greater reliance on biological solutions. Additionally, organic farming can improve farm profitability by reducing costs and increasing market demand for organic products. While studies have found organic farming is frequently associated with lower yields, they tend to be more profitable due to the higher prices organic produce attracts. A recent meta study concluded that organic farms reliably promote biotic abundance, biotic richness, soil carbon, and profitability compared with conventional farms, but conventional farms generally produced higher yields.
Barriers to wider adoption include the lower typical yields achieved and difficulties in sourcing organic solutions to problems like pests, weeds, and diseases.
Social licence
Social license can be a potential win-win for farming and conservation if it is effectively implemented and balanced. Social license refers to the acceptance and support of a specific activity or project by the local community and stakeholders. It is also the public acknowledgement that farming land comprises a large proportion of our environment. In the context of farming and conservation, it means that farmers and conservationists can work together to find mutually beneficial solutions that balance the needs of food production with the protection of natural resources. For example, farmers may adopt conservation practices that improve the health of natural resources and biodiversity, while conservationists may support the development of sustainable food production systems.
However, achieving a true win-win scenario through social license is not always easy, it requires a lot of work and good faith from all parties involved. It requires a deep understanding of the needs and priorities of the different stakeholders, and a willingness to negotiate and find common ground. It also requires adequate resources, such as funding and technical support, to implement the necessary changes. In addition, social license may not always be a win-win, as there may be inherent trade-offs and compromises required to find a balance between conservation and food production.
Dam biodiversity
When dams are used as water storage for livestock, there can be risks associated with the water quality that may decrease livestock health. Encouraging dam biodiversity can help to improve water quality by supporting the growth of aquatic plants, which can help to filter pollutants and improve the overall health of the water. Vegetation can also improve the flow of water and reduce sedimentation. Together, these changes can result in increased livestock health, improved weight gain, and higher profitability according to recent research. Besides livestock health, dam biodiversity can help to support a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial species, which can increase the overall environmental values of the area.
Despite these benefits, encouraging dam biodiversity can be a costly process, requiring significant investments in infrastructure, equipment, and personnel. This may be a barrier for some organisations and communities that lack the resources to invest in these efforts. However, the return on investment may be positive in many Australian situations.
Can farming save the environment?
Compared to farms, natural ecosystems are far more biodiverse, with richer ecological interactions and processes, and a greater resilience to environmental changes. In contrast, farms are generally designed to support the production of specific crops and domesticated animals, which reduces the overall diversity and complexity from the natural ecosystems they have replaced. While sustainable food production is worthy goal, I don't think it can (or should) replace environmental conservation efforts. Taking a monocultural and chemically sterilised crop from one species to multi-species crop with improved soil biodiversity and beneficial insects is a big improvement. However, even the most sustainable farm is highly simplified in terms of biodiversity and function when compared to a natural ecosystem.
I think the concept of win-wins may be more accurately framed as trade-offs. recently read a manuscript by McShane et al. (2011) who wrote:
Win–win scenarios, where both natural resources are conserved and human well-being is improved in specific places over time, have been difficult, if not almost impossible, to realize. Compromise, contestation and conflict are more often the norm. Often hard choices need to be made between different kinds of conservation, and between conservation and human well-being, and these should be explicitly acknowledged. Not to do so leads to unrealized expectations and ultimately unresolved conflict. Conservationists need to make greater efforts to more effectively consider trade-off choices between different points-of-view, determine at what levels biodiversity loss is acceptable, mitigate human costs, and broaden the decision-making process. At the same time, development that ignores the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems and natural resources will ultimately prove unsustainable. The challenge for the conservation and development community is to engage in a social process that allows for compromise and the explicit acknowledgement of risks and costs, while at the same time gaining ever more clarity and purpose regarding those things that should not be traded off.”
So can farming save the environment? I guess it depends on the kind of environment you want to save. In another blog post, I wrote about the importance of acknowledging that different people want to conserve different things according to what they value.
Nevertheless, I think the extent to which sustainable farming can contribute to biodiversity conservation is an important issue that I will try to better address in another blog post.