Should a farmer intensify or extensify?

Lately I see the discussion increasing whether we can save nature by focusing on what is called in English 'land-sparing' or on 'land-sharing'? The reason for the flare-up of the discussion is the growing awareness that sufficient food must be produced worldwide to feed all mouths. Intensive agriculture and the environment are often presented as opposites. As if both are impossible at the same time.

I often remind people that we are the world champions in intensive agriculture and that we do this in an increasingly environmentally friendly way. So if you ask me to choose between land sharing and land saving, I answer: Well, it depends. But we can also save nature by farming intensively in the right, environmentally friendly way. The best of both worlds.

Just to be clear, land-sparing means that you focus on intensive agriculture, with high production per hectare so that you can feed the world population with fewer hectares of agricultural land. This literally leaves more space for nature. Which will ultimately lead to better nature. Land-sharing, on the other hand, assumes much more intertwining of agriculture and nature, so that you literally also produce nature on agricultural land. With land-sharing, you do need more hectares of agricultural land to produce enough food to feed the world population. But on balance, this will be a more robust and environmentally friendly system. As I said, my answer to the question of whether we should focus on land-sparing or land-sharing is always: Well, it depends.

From the Dutch context, my position is that we have focused on land-sparing over the past 70 years. We have increased production per hectare enormously and in doing so have freed up space for nature here and in other places in the world. In the Netherlands, we have a very strict separation between agriculture and nature, sometimes agriculture and nature are literally separated by a fence. We call one side of the fence nature and the other side agriculture. Unfortunately, this intensive agriculture still has a very negative impact on the liberated nature on the other side of the fence. Just think of nitrogen and crop protection products, but water management in agriculture also has an impact on the quality of nature on the other side of the fence. Seen in this light, land-sparing has not brought us the quality of nature that we consider necessary.

The black-tailed godwit (grutto)
Let's also take the black-tailed godwit. This iconic species of the Netherlands thrives best on extensively managed and grazed grassland. The peak of the number of black-tailed godwit breeding pairs in the Netherlands has a strong correlation with the form of agriculture in the middle of the last century. If we continue to focus on land-saving, there will no longer be a place for the black-tailed godwit in agriculture, but in nature reserves that are not managed agriculturally in a certain way, the black-tailed godwit will also not find a home. If we want to keep the black-tailed godwit for the Netherlands, that requires areas that I would like to call an excellent example of land-sharing.

It is often thought that if you opt for land-sparing, you create all the space and freedom for the highly productive farmer. But in a densely populated country like the Netherlands, that freedom will always be limited because agricultural areas in our country also always play a role as residential and recreational areas. That intensive agriculture will therefore still have to meet all kinds of environmental requirements in order to continue to exist, even with land-sparing. Just look at the recent court rulings on the use of crop protection products in the vicinity of homes and nature. Even with land-sparing, you as an agricultural and horticultural sector will therefore have to continuously prove that your method of agriculture does not harm nature on the other side of the fence.

Global perspective
If you look at this on a global scale, it is all much simpler. The yields per hectare are so low on average compared to what we achieve here that it is not a question for me what you should do there, namely focus on intensification. But the focus on intensification in large parts of the world must be done with the lessons we have learned in mind. So yes, intensification or rather increasing production per hectare is the right way in many places on earth to be able to produce a lot of food and to keep space free for nature. But if that increase in production is accompanied by a major impact on the environment, because we need too much chemistry or too much water for that, the impact on nature will still be negative. Here too, it applies that when focusing on land-saving, you should always also focus on the most environmentally friendly agricultural methods and/or techniques available. Let that be partly our expertise, so our greatest contribution to the world food issue is, in my opinion, to provide agricultural and horticultural methods that contain the best of both worlds.

My answer to the question should we focus on land-saving or on land-sharing remains: Well, it depends. But I do want to add one thing: nature can do just fine without agriculture, but agriculture cannot do without nature.

Alex Datema

Alex Datema is Director of Food & Agri at Rabobank and also a dairy farmer in Briltil (Groningen). In his opinion articles he outlines his vision on the agricultural sector and the food system.

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.