On July 13, INDEVOURS will be hosting a Global Gala
event. In addition to raising money to
fund our overseas field placements, the Gala will highlight the pressing issue
of global food insecurity. Unequal
distribution, population growth, and environmental degradation all contribute
to global food scarcity issues. And given our current trajectory of
unsustainable population growth and increasing environmental destruction, new
solutions to global food security problems are becoming absolutely necessary. It is, however, an unfortunate fact that food
production is inextricably linked to environmental degradation, with negative effects on human well-being.
It is urgent, therefore, that current and future global food production
systems try to minimize their environmental footprint. Yet how is this best accomplished? This is the central question of the ‘sharing
vs. sparing’ debate.
This debate involves two markedly different paths to an
environmentally sustainable food system.
Those who espouse a ‘sharing’ approach call for the adoption of
environmentally friendly agricultural practices that supposedly protect biodiversity (this includes things like agro-forestry). The idea here is
essentially: “let’s grow our food in a way that allows humans, plants, and
animals to all mutually benefit from the same land”. A ‘sparing’ approach, however, argues that
such ‘eco-friendly’ options are actually more damaging to the natural
environment because they require that more land be used in the production of
agriculture. A ‘sparing’ approach
essentially says: “let’s make as much food as possible on the smallest amount
of land (whatever it takes), in order to leave the greatest amount of natural land
untouched by human activity”.
It seems (to me at least) that both make valid arguments for
two very different sustainable agriculture systems. Yet now, a new study published in Science magazine has apparently provided
some much needed empirical data for this debate. And the results surprised me.
Apparently, when it comes to biodiversity, the more environmentally friendly solution involves sparing the land. According to this study, intensive agriculture aimed at maximizing total
yields per area of land, when combined with strictly enforced conservation of natural
habitats is more effective at protecting biodiversity than are ‘eco-friendly’
practices which aim to share the land with native flora and fauna. At least, this is the case in the parts of
India and Ghana where this study was undertaken.
As the authors of the report state, more studies are needed
to further inform policy makers about all of the environmental implications of
different agricultural practices. Yet
the authors clearly state that, given their findings, Ghana and India could
produce more food with minimal environmental damage through land sparing programs
and they could not through land-sharing initiatives.
What do you think? I
would love to hear what people have to say, especially anyone who will be
working with an agricultural organization this fall.
Dan
No comments:
Post a Comment