A Brief Overview of Land Sparing vs. Land Sharing in Post-Brexit Britain
Since the decision to leave the European Union in 2016, the topic of food security has been lost in the subsequent storm of media coverage, overlooked in favour of more attention-grabbing headlines. However, the quiet surrounding the topic shouldn’t be taken to mean that it is less worthy of our concern. On the contrary, food security and food production are some of the most uncertain and precarious issues we face once we leave the EU.
70% of the food the UK imports comes from within the EU, and the EU in turn is the destination of 60% of Britain’s agricultural exports. Such a dependency has deep implications for after 2020. In a report by the Science Policy Research Unit, professor Tim Lang described the lack of attention paid to post-Brexit agriculture as “bizarre” and “an astonishing act of political irresponsibility”. Leaving the EU will require the UK to create for the first time its own agricultural policy, but first, we must decide what we want our farms to look like.
Many debates over the agricultural future of the UK focus on whether we should focus on land-sparing (intensive farming methods which produce high volumes over a small acreage, theoretically leaving more land untouched for wildlife) or land-sharing (extensive production, which attempts to farm in a more “eco-friendly” way, compatible with wildlife). In reality this debate is, like most dichotomies, too simplistic.
High yields should not be the only goal
Those in favour of land-sparing argue that extensive agriculture is simply not productive enough to feed our growing population. But is increased production the answer to food security in the first place? We already produce enough food globally to feed the world, yet the FAO suggests that over a third is lost or wasted worldwide. Even if you agree that organic agriculture would be unable to produce as much per hectare as conventional ag, the debate doesn’t necessarily end there. Measures that plug gaps in the distribution system and reduce food waste could do much to mitigate the issue at the outset.
How you define productivity and efficiency in the first place skews how you perceive the debate. There is good evidence to suggest that small-scale organic farms are more productive per area than their larger monoculture counterparts, but the labour requirements are higher¹.
Arguments based on yields alone often fail to consider the entire food system holistically; where do our continuously depleting inputs come from? If the UK were to increase agricultural intensification and become more self-sufficient in terms of food production, this does not necessarily make it more food secure. Agricultural intensification does not simply refer to agricultural methods which produce high yields; it almost invariably refers to methods which use high levels of petrochemical inputs. How secure is our food system if it collapses in the face of spiking oil prices or failures in our supply chain? In the face of catastrophic climate change and peak oil, surely we should be working towards a food system that is resilient and well-equipped for a petrochemical-scare future. Even if one argues that there is no impending shortage of oil or gas, we must ask ourselves whether that is a good enough reason on its own to support the expansion of such an energetically demanding production system, especially in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss. The finite nature of fossil fuels is not the only reason to pursue a “greener” food system.
Ultimately, discussions that emphasize increased production alone, without including other key aspects of the issue such as governance, supply-chains, and poverty are simply not productive. An article by Abson et al. summarizes the issue well when it states “If a lack of production is not the primary cause of food insecurity, then an increase in production cannot be the primary solution”
Is land-sparing the way forward?
The UK currently devotes 70% of its landscapes to agriculture of some kind. If through agricultural intensification we could reduce this percentage to, for arguments sake, 40%, can we really say that we have achieved a net ecological benefit if the management of this land was ecologically and climatically damaging? Even if we doubled the number of protected areas, could we really call ourselves a progressive and “green” nation if a majority of our landscapes are still being continuously and deliberately degraded? We should be wary of encouraging practices that purport to “leave space for nature”, but are designed to exclude all except the desired forms of life on their own territories.
Many of our biodiversity crises in the UK are linked to food production. The RSPB reports a 48% decline in farmland bird species in the UK since 1970. 97% of our wildflower meadows have been lost since WW2. Some research suggests that this is related to the startling decline in pollinator numbers, which has huge implications for food production. This is due in part to the exact intensification of the farm environment that many ecologists are supporting. Many of the UK’s most iconic species are directly associated with the traditional farming landscapes they co-evolved with over hundreds of years; once the old farming methods go, so does the biodiversity.
A Fusion Future
That said, in the spirit of not falling into false dichotomies, we should avoid making the debate a case of supporting either industrial agriculture or “ecological” agriculture. Many species, including those we might hope to reintroduce into the UK such as the lynx or wolf, simply don’t thrive in human-occupied environments. We need the protected areas land-sparers advocate for, but measures which sacrifice some areas in the name of sparing others are not the way forward. As with most issues, there are trade-offs involved, and the most plausible future scenario will involve some combination of the two. For example, it is very likely we will still be growing food using synthetic fertilizers for decades to come, but perhaps there can be stricter laws regarding their use, and perhaps we can develop new ways for it to be applied less wastefully. Perhaps industrial arable fields can begin utilizing leguminous crop covers, make use of biological pest control, and incorporate crop or livestock rotations into their structure.
Our current agricultural system does not reflect the environmental and human needs of the world we live in. Brexit gives the UK the chance to make a major sea-change in terms of how we produce food, for good or evil. We should take it as an opportunity to implement a truly progressive, equitable, and sustainable food system, not continue with business as usual.
¹The increased labour requirements associated with transitioning to a more organic agricultural system are either a boon or a hazard depending on your world view — this will be examined in a later post
