Minimizing the negative impacts of tropical agricultural expansion and intensification on biodiversity and food security has been intensively discussed in the context of the land-sparing/land-sharing framework. Here, we evaluate how study scope, methodologies, geographical focus, number of species studied, and type of cropping system helped to shape authors’ recommendations. First, we found that empirical studies focusing on tropical biodiversity were primarily in favor of land sparing (67%, 12 of 18 studies), whereas reviews and perspectives with a non-biodiversity focus (e.g. ecosystem services and food security) were more likely to favor of land sharing (58%, 7 of 12 studies). Second, wildlife-friendly tree crops or shaded systems (e.g. coffee and cacao) were the focus of most applied ecology research, while annual crops accounted for the majority of tropical cropland area and recent expansion. While these trends lend support that land sparing—by closing yield gaps paired with the protection of large contiguous habitats—is favored to limit the impacts on sensitive tropical forest biodiversity, the necessary policies and enforcement mechanisms may not yet be present or effective, nor is there adequate understanding and mitigation of negative food security impacts. By illustrating how a study's context shapes recommendations, our results help move the land-sparing/land-sharing debate forward by clarifying the origins of long-standing disagreements.

Achieving a “sustainable food future” (the title of one of the three priorities identify by the government of Argentina for the 2018 G20 presidency) requires building food systems that, in line with the related sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), support growth and employment, ensure social inclusiveness and equity, promote climate resilience and environmental sustainability, protect biodiversity, and generate healthy diets for all. Many policy, institutional, technological and investment innovations are needed to build such food systems. This paper focuses on the financing of the utilization of adequate technologies and innovations in agricultural production, including the ones related to soils, land, water, ecosystems, and, in general, those that have been called Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) or Climate-friendly Sustainable Agriculture (CFSA). It explores several options to mobilize financial resources to support investments in those technologies and sustainable food systems at the scale needed to have some meaningful global impact. In particular, it argues that the creation of a project preparation and financial structuring facility of appropriate scale would help leverage scarce public-sector funds to mobilize the much larger pool of private financial funds that may be interested in participating in these investments but now lack adequately structured projects and investment vehicles to do so.

Achieving a “sustainable food future” (the title of one of the three priorities identify by the government of Argentina for the 2018 G20 presidency) requires building food systems that, in line with the related sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), support growth and employment, ensure social inclusiveness and equity, promote climate resilience and environmental sustainability, protect biodiversity, and generate healthy diets for all. Many policy, institutional, technological and investment innovations are needed to build such food systems. This paper focuses on the financing of the utilization of adequate technologies and innovations in agricultural production, including the ones related to soils, land, water, ecosystems, and, in general, those that have been called Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) or Climate-friendly Sustainable Agriculture (CFSA). It explores several options to mobilize financial resources to support investments in those technologies and sustainable food systems at the scale needed to have some meaningful global impact. In particular, it argues that the creation of a project preparation and financial structuring facility of appropriate scale would help leverage scarce public-sector funds to mobilize the much larger pool of private financial funds that may be interested in participating in these investments but now lack adequately structured projects and investment vehicles to do so. | Non-PR | IFPRI5; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 2 Promoting Healthy Diets and Nutrition for all; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; UNFSS | LAC | 19 pages

Réunion de la Société Française d'Ecologie et Evolution | National audience | Given the multiple challenges imposed by global changes, including climate change, land use conversion, biological invasions, and habitat loss, ecology has received more societal attention in the last decades than ever before. Indeed, global change imposes a number of new challenges for global food security, including the need to adapt agricultural systems to new environmental conditions and potentially new pests and diseases. Planning for these changes requires a better understanding of the factors influencing agricultural productivity and stability, as well as the design and use of predictive tools to allow forecasting and comparisons between potential management strategies. More importantly, the goals of sustainability, along with the need to adapt and forecast, impose a need to abandon the case-by-case approaches and to come up with broader, more generalizable strategies that will allow maintaining and increasing productivity in a more biodiversity-friendly manner. Macroecology focuses on finding general patterns across ecological communities at large scales, in particular with respect to abundance, distributions and biodiversity. It is therefore particularly well suited to study and answer questions of global change as applied to agricultural landscapes. However, as in many other fields in ecology, macroecologists have focused largely on the study of natural or semi-natural systems. Here I review major macroecological fields of study that can contribute to a more predictive agricultural management strategy. The main goals of this review will be to (1) synthesize what we know about macroecological patterns that need to be tested and applied to agricultural systems; (2) identify areas where macroecological research has already been contributing to agricultural planning as well as (3) identifying gaps where we can bring more macroecology into agricultural sciences. The emphasis will be on the particular challenges and opportunities that agricultural settings can provide for such a macroecological perspective.

An increasing interest and sensitivity of consumers and public opinion toward high-quality food products obtained with environmentally-friendly production methods has recently been detected. To this end, one of the key roles could be played by an environmental evaluation of the crop production. This research was performed to test a new multi-attribute decision model (DEXi-met) that is able to estimate the environmental sustainability of different agronomic practices in horticultural rotations. The model was used at the cropping system level on the basis of data from a long-term experiment in organic horticulture. It was tested on different cropping managements under climate change conditions. The DEXi-met mixed model (qualitative and qualitative basic attributes) generated four aggregated attributes to assess sustainability indicators (production capacity, soil, water and resources preservation, and biodiversity conservation) and the overall environmental sustainability. The model validation indicated that the introduction of agro-ecological services crops can increase the environmental sustainability of an organic cropping systems by promoting the whole soil–plant system equilibrium. The application of this tool could help maximize the efficient use of agronomical practices and quantify their environmental sustainability. DEXi-met could help agricultural advisors and policymakers schedule their decisions to find the right compromise between crop yield increase and the impact of agricultural activities.

Humans have become the leading cause of planetary changes, threatening the very earth systems that life depends on. Scientists have identified the global food-system as pivotal in both causing and addressing environmental challenges, highlighting a need to reduce global meat consumption and increase plant-based diets. Yet by fixating on dietary recommendations, much of the focus remains at an individual rather than a food-system level. However, Britain could shift the responsibility from the consumer by reshaping Britain’s agricultural production once released from European Union rules. The proposed post-Brexit Agricultural Bill (2017-2019) recommends providing financial support to farmers who promote “environmental enhancement, protection and enjoyment” (Defra, 2018b, para 20), presenting an opportunity to support environmentally friendly farming while reducing Britain’s livestock-centred farming approach. Thus, the purpose of this thesis is to address two objectives. Firstly, a literature review reveals how reducing livestock and increasing pulses would support the British government’s sustainable food-system goals by reducing emissions and fresh water use, supporting biodiversity, promoting UK citizens’ health, and furthermore would come at a time when UK consumers are increasingly ethically motivated to shift to plant-based diets. Secondly, a case study interviewing farmers in Shropshire identified potential challenges and leverage-points for this transition to take place. Discussing the past, present and future of farming with farmers provided insight on the interweaving roles that the British government, the market, and farmers’ identity play in influencing agricultural trajectory. This study found that while farmers were adaptable to changing circumstances, to encourage a shift they would need to view changes as both possible and profitable. Government has the potential to increase farmers’ confidence in pulse’s possibility and profitability by funding research on pulse-cultivation in the UK, providing financial incentives through public goods payments, and stimulating a market by serving pulses in all public canteens. Furthermore, by aligning recommendations with farmers’ appreciation of biodiversity, the government could harness farmers’ support to re-shape Britain’s agricultural trajectory. Finally, as the majority of British farmers are nearing retirement, government should encourage a new generation of pulse farmers to enter the farming profession. | M-IES