Professor Joern Fischer

Email: jfischer@leuphana.de Blog: http://ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @ideas4sust

Beyond a false dichotomy

Image source: http://fernandezrip.blogspot.com/2011/07/rest-in-peace-fernandez.html

SLOSSARE

CORRIDORSGOOD

OR BAD?

LAND SPARING

VS. LAND

SHARING

Outline

1. Problems within the debate2. Problems about the debate3. A few words on sustainable intensification4. Moving on gracefully

Fischer et al. 2008. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Problems within the debate: Polarisation

Why is this framed as two mutually exclusive options?

Compare SLOSS debate, corridors debate:Polarised question yields heated, self-serving debates

Problems within the debate: Wrong conceptual basis

Motivated from the perspective of “feeding the world”If this is the goal, primary problems relate to global equity issues, female secondary education, fertility management (directly and indirectly)Why over-emphasise supply rather than distribution, food waste, dietary habits?

“A defeated argument that refuses to be obliterated can remain very alive.”  (Amartya Sen)

Problems within the debate: Internal vagueness

Vagueness about: What is to be spared?Scale issuesTarget species? Where?

Problems about the debate: Overuse

If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail…

Green et al. (2005) showed there may be a trade-off b/w yields and biodiversityThis is useful conceptually!

But now being used a long way beyond its conceptual limits

Problems about the debate: Overuse

“… there are at least four reasons why conservationists should be cautious about the idea that agriculture is a key element for conservation in the developing world (or indeed anywhere)” – Phalan et al. 2012, Conservation Letters

Source: http://www.cbd.int/images/map20.gif; Foley et al. 2007, PNAS

Resolving the debate: A first attempt

Fischer et al. 2008. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Resolving the debate: A first attempt

The debate has hardened rather than matured

“Both social and biophysical factors influence which approach is feasible or appropriate in a given landscape. Drawing upon the strengths of each approach, we outline broad policy guidelines for conservation in agricultural landscapes.” (Fischer et al. 2008)

Polarisation = self-serving = producing papers above all else

Fischer et al. 2008. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Resolving the debate: A new attempt

This has little to do with science per seAll about worldviews, paradigms and ideologies underpinning different types of science

Underlying premise: Values => Goals => Solutions

Image source: http://corporatelifecoach.blogspot.de/2012/01/idealist-vs-realist.html

‘Realist’ arguments

Yields must increase!Global demand is taken as given and should be metPolicy makers seen as in need of advice, so they can optimize decisionsReal-world decisions seen as coming from the topHeavily rooted in quantitative frameworks, seeking to find objective solutions to complex problemsDispassionate analysis favoured (= a simple numbers game)

Firmly the realm of traditional natural scienceSeeks improved empirical basis and more sophisticated models

‘Idealist’ arguments

Yields are only a minor component of a much bigger problem!Refusal to take anything as given – asking simply “where do we need to go”?Because these arguments routinely challenge status quo politics, there is no particular emphasis on advising policy makers – local bottom-up strategies believed to be important Often heavily motivated by ethical, rather than purely scientific interestsMany arguments are qualitative and not dispassionate

e.g. taking a stance on the political issue of food sovereignty – no special value attributed to quantitative sophistication

‘Realist’ arguments – working within the system

“Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally” (Phalan et al. 2011)

“Even with recent productivity gains, roughly one in seven people lack access to food or are chronically malnourished, stemming from continued poverty and mounting food prices…”[but focus then continues to gloss over distribution issues, emphasising instead quantity of food:]

“Our analysis demonstrates that four core strategies can—in principle—meet future food production needs and environmental challenges if deployed simultaneously. Adding them together, they increase global food availability by 100–180%, meeting projected demands while lowering greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity losses, water use and water pollution.” (Foley et al. 2011)

“Here, we forecast 2050 global crop demand and then quantitatively evaluate the global impacts on land clearing” (Tilman et al. 2011)

‘Idealist’ arguments – challenging the system

“In a world where obesity and hunger co-occur, it seems beside the point to argue about yield increases” (Chappell and LaValle 2011)

“Food security and … sovereignty are needed where the hungry live, which is often within a landscape matrix of ecosystems that are rich in biodiversity …. Hunger … is not so much linked to the quantity of food … but to poverty...” (Tscharntke et al. 2012)

“The simple model by Phalan et al. ignores vital social and ecological complexities, including rural livelihoods … Social and ecological complexities must not be an afterthought in analyses about food and biodiversity, because they fundamentally alter the outcome. Simple models must be balanced with holistic… approaches ... Otherwise there is a great risk that internally consistent solutions are overinterpreted as externally applicable by policy-makers… and the public.” (Fischer et al. 2011)

What about sustainable intensification?

Politically powerful but potentially “empty”

Win-wins should always be the first goalBut win-win seems unlikely in many settings

Just as vagueJust as politicalJust as “universal” in flavour

Moving on gracefully

Fischer et al. 2008. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Values & assumptions

Goals & objectives

Solution

given the situation at hand

given the situation at hand

Should not be ignored

Must be explicit, including recognition of multiple trade-offs

No one-size-fits all solutions

The situation shapes what we deem important

Reality severely constrains the set of reasonable solutions

Back to the roots of our discipline

Michael Soulé in 1980s: conservation biology is normative, multi-disciplinary and diverseMichael Soulé in the 2000s: we need to appreciate and collaborate with other “life-affirming movements” (e.g. human rights, animal rights, biodiversity rights)

Has conservation biologylost its self-awareness?

Source: http://www.conservationgis.org/scgis/ScgNews1/graphics/soule1b.jpg

Conclusion

Michael Soulé in 1980s: conservation biology is normative, multi-disciplinary and diverseMichael Soulé in the 2000s: we need to appreciate and collaborate with other “life-affirming movements” (e.g. human rights, animal rights, biodiversity rights)

Take-home messages:1. We need to explicitly and consciously position ourselves in terms of

our values and objectives to avoid futile debates;2. We need to appreciate conceptual models without over-using them;3. There is (much) more to this problem than biodiversity and yields.

Acknowledgements

Thanks for funding to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Sofja Kovalevskaja Award 2010)

Thanks to countless collaborators who have inspired and challenged me on these issues

Thanks especially to those I disagree with for listening

LAND SPARING

VS. LAND

SHARING