Building on some of Teja Tscharntke’s key papers we discuss a number of complexities of farming systems and agricultural landscapes that we believe should be included in future studies of production landscapes. We contend that transformation of modern agricultural landscapes to biodiversity-friendly ones needs a combination of farming on-field measures, land-use practices and landscape measures, but also policies supporting less intensive production. We argue that in future research, landscape ecologists should acknowledge the multiple values of biodiversity, and abandon using simple species richness indicators for those values. Ecologists should rather focus on understanding what species and their interactions are actually doing in production ecosystems. Some myths in landscape ecology, such as global food scarcity, land sparing, and intensive farming being the benchmark for sustainable food production, are rejected. We show that the global agricultural system is entrenched in a productivist narrative that hinders development of more sustainable production systems. In order to change current agricultural systems towards sustainable production and biodiversity-friendly landscapes, we need a broader perspective that incorporates knowledge and understanding of social-ecological systems and processes. We exemplify this with four future scenarios for Swedish food systems that in different ways are suggested to contribute to biodiversity goals, though perhaps not exactly via the biodiversity-friendly landscapes envisioned by Teja and many other ecologists.

Agriculture is the largest contributor to biodiversity loss with expanding impacts due to changing consumption patterns and growing populations. Agriculture destroys biodiversity by converting natural habitats to intensely managed systems and by releasing pollutants, including greenhouses gases. Food value chains further amplify impacts including through energy use, transport and waste. Reducing the food system’s toll on biodiversity is a critical challenge. The ‘sparing or sharing’ debate contrasts two response pathways: intensifying agriculture to release other land for protection versus biodiversity-friendly farming over larger areas. Most conservation policies focus on intensification and set-aside but recent research challenges these assumptions. The Global Land Outlook of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification highlights how modern farming is undermining the sustainability of large land areas. Intensification has not solved the biodiversity crisis and has often made it worse. Effective responses must involve both producers and consumers, and require a mixture of conservation, sustainable management and restoration. Agricultural land serves many purposes beyond food production and mechanisms are needed to pay farmers for wider stewardship of land resources. A multifunctional landscape approach balances different needs at a landscape scale while incorporating site-level specificity on land use, demand, and condition. At the same time, consumers play a critical role in reducing unsustainable food waste. Many of the techniques and strategies for biodiversity-friendly farming systems exist; the challenge is to bring them to scale.

Several prominent articles have recently revived the debate on how to advance and reconcile two pressing global issues: conservation of biodiversity, and food production for an increasing human population. These discussions contrast a 'land-sparing/intensive agriculture' strategy with a 'biodiversity-friendly' agriculture approach. We propose that swidden or shifting cultivation should be an important component of the latter approach in the tropics because many swidden systems maintain very high levels of biodiversity while providing livelihood for populations in tropical forest areas worldwide. We suggest further that when many swidden systems are viewed without prejudice and in broader spatial and longer temporal perspectives, the conservationist aspects of the systems become evident.

Today, global food production is the largest driver of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss (Willett et al. 2019). Rising global food demand and limited arable land are pushing us to expand agricultural frontiers and production. This often happens without regard to the environment, causing biodiversity loss, land and water degradation (Bioversity International 2017) Climate change is accelerating biodiversity loss. Higher temperatures disrupt pollination and natural pest control, affecting food quality (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN 2017).Equally, the need to feed an additional 2 billion people by 2050 is pushing us to increase yields in a few staple foods, which erodes food and genetic diversity. Biodiversity loss in food systems leaves farmers with fewer options to deal with risks of crop failure, declining soil fertility, or increasingly variable weather (Bioversity International 2017), causing production losses, food insecurity and malnutrition(FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP WHO 2018).The way we produce and consume our food is hurting both people and the planet. This calls upon all of us, from governments to producers to consumers, to put biodiversity back into food (World Economic Forum (WEF) 2017).Food and - more broadly - agricultural biodiversity are essential for sustainable food systems. Agrobiodiversity boosts productivity and nutrition quality, increases soil and water quality, and reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers. It makes farmers’ livelihoods more resilient, reducing yield losses due to climate change and pest damage. Broadening the types of cultivated plants also benefits the environment, increasing the abundance of pollinators and beneficial soil organisms, and reducing the risk of pest epidemics.To sustainably use and conserve agrobiodiversity, governments need dedicated, multi-sectoral and evidence-based policies and strategies. From smallholder farmers to multinational companies, food producers are becoming increasingly important in conserving genetic resources and adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Consumers need to become more aware of the impact of their food choices on the planet and their role in preserving the environment.What actions do we need to put in place to make change happen? To answer, we need to be able to measure biodiversity in food systems. While decades of effort have advanced our understanding of sustainable food systems, biodiversity data remain uneven and oftentimes information is analyzed from sectoral perspectives (i.e.: production, consumption or conservation). To transform food systems, we need to look at the broader picture and understand the systemic linkages between biodiversity, food security and nutrition, agricultural production, and the environment.Bioversity International has developed the Agrobiodiversity Index, an innovative tool that brings together existing data on diets and markets, production and genetic resources, analyzing them under the lens of agricultural biodiversity (Bioversity International 2018). Through open access to agricultural biodiversity data for science and society, the tool crosses disciplinary boundaries and allows users to monitor biodiversity trends in food systems. In particular, it helps food systems actors to measure agrobiodiversity in a selected area or value chain, and understand to what extent their commitments and actions are contributing to its sustainable use and conservation.This user-friendly tool equips food systems actors with the data needed to make informed decisions. For example, it helps governments to formulate evidence-based agricultural, health and food policies and strategies to address today’s global challenges, by providing information on how biological and geographical diversity influence food systems sustainability. Through the Index, companies can understand how to diversify their supply chain and production to reduce risks, and what are the best agricultural practices for their agro-ecological zone. The tool can thereby support best practices dissemination, and track progress towards global goals related to agrobiodiversity, including Sustainable Development Goals 3, 12, 13, 15 and Aichi targets 7.

Should farming and conservation policies aim broadly to separate land for nature and land for production (land sparing) or integrate production and conservation on the same land (wildlife-friendly farming)? Most studies that try to address this question suffer from flaws in sampling design, inappropriate metrics, and/or failure to measure biodiversity baselines. We discuss how these failings can be addressed, and what existing information tells us about the key debates on this topic. The evidence available suggests that trade-offs between biodiversity and yield are prevalent. While there are some wildlife-friendly farming systems that support high species richness, a large proportion of wild species cannot survive in even the most benign farming systems. To conserve those species, protection of wild lands will remain essential. Sustainable intensification could help to facilitate sparing of such lands, provided that as much attention is given to protecting habitats as to raising yields. We discuss the general circumstances under which yield increases can facilitate land sparing, recognising that policies and social safeguards will need to be context-specific. In some situations, bringing degraded lands into production could help reduce pressure on wild lands, but much more information is needed on the biodiversity implications of using degraded lands. We conclude that restricting human requirements for land globally will be important in limiting the impacts on biodiversity of increasing food production. To achieve this, society will need to integrate explicit conservation objectives into local, regional and international policies affecting the food system.

In recent years consumers’ concerns regarding the environmental impact of food production has significantly increased, also due to food sustainability, food safety and food security issues. A number of certification systems for environmental-friendly products have been created e.g. water-saving labels and fishery sustainable labels. Among various environmental issues, the protection of biodiversity has recently gained popularity both in public opinion and in scientific debate. This paper describes the results of a Choice Experiment on wine consumers to estimate their willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation practices in vineyards. The survey was conducted by direct interviews at a wine tasting event in an Italian winery located at Montefano (Marche). The results show that consumers are willing to pay a premium price for wine certification that takes into account biodiversity not only for medium-high price wines, but also for low-price wines. Finally, quality of wine and organic certification remain important attributes in wine purchasing choices related to expensive wines.

Today, global food production is the largest driver of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss (Willett et al. 2019). Rising global food demand and limited arable land are pushing us to expand agricultural frontiers and production. This often happens without regard to the environment, causing biodiversity loss, land and water degradation (Bioversity International 2017) Climate change is accelerating biodiversity loss. Higher temperatures disrupt pollination and natural pest control, affecting food quality (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN 2017). Equally, the need to feed an additional 2 billion people by 2050 is pushing us to increase yields in a few staple foods, which erodes food and genetic diversity. Biodiversity loss in food systems leaves farmers with fewer options to deal with risks of crop failure, declining soil fertility, or increasingly variable weather (Bioversity International 2017), causing production losses, food insecurity and malnutrition(FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP WHO 2018). The way we produce and consume our food is hurting both people and the planet. This calls upon all of us, from governments to producers to consumers, to put biodiversity back into food (World Economic Forum (WEF) 2017). Food and - more broadly - agricultural biodiversity are essential for sustainable food systems. Agrobiodiversity boosts productivity and nutrition quality, increases soil and water quality, and reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers. It makes farmers’ livelihoods more resilient, reducing yield losses due to climate change and pest damage. Broadening the types of cultivated plants also benefits the environment, increasing the abundance of pollinators and beneficial soil organisms, and reducing the risk of pest epidemics. To sustainably use and conserve agrobiodiversity, governments need dedicated, multi-sectoral and evidence-based policies and strategies. From smallholder farmers to multinational companies, food producers are becoming increasingly important in conserving genetic resources and adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Consumers need to become more aware of the impact of their food choices on the planet and their role in preserving the environment. What actions do we need to put in place to make change happen? To answer, we need to be able to measure biodiversity in food systems. While decades of effort have advanced our understanding of sustainable food systems, biodiversity data remain uneven and oftentimes information is analyzed from sectoral perspectives (i.e.: production, consumption or conservation). To transform food systems, we need to look at the broader picture and understand the systemic linkages between biodiversity, food security and nutrition, agricultural production, and the environment. Bioversity International has developed the Agrobiodiversity Index, an innovative tool that brings together existing data on diets and markets, production and genetic resources, analyzing them under the lens of agricultural biodiversity (Bioversity International 2018). Through open access to agricultural biodiversity data for science and society, the tool crosses disciplinary boundaries and allows users to monitor biodiversity trends in food systems. In particular, it helps food systems actors to measure agrobiodiversity in a selected area or value chain, and understand to what extent their commitments and actions are contributing to its sustainable use and conservation. This user-friendly tool equips food systems actors with the data needed to make informed decisions. For example, it helps governments to formulate evidence-based agricultural, health and food policies and strategies to address today’s global challenges, by providing information on how biological and geographical diversity influence food systems sustainability. Through the Index, companies can understand how to diversify their supply chain and production to reduce risks, and what are the best agricultural practices for their agro-ecological zone. The tool can thereby support best practices dissemination, and track progress towards global goals related to agrobiodiversity, including Sustainable Development Goals 3, 12, 13, 15 and Aichi targets 7.

SPEPôle GESTAD | Ecological intensification has been proposed as a paradigm for ensuring global food security while preserving biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Ecological intensification was originally coined to promote precise site-specific farming practices aimed at reducing yield gaps, while avoiding negative environmental impacts (techno-simplicity). Recently, it has been extended to stress the importance of landscape complexity to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services (eco-complexity). While these perspectives on ecological intensification may seem distinct, they are not incompatible and should be interwoven to create more comprehensive and practical solutions. Here, we argue that designing cropping systems to be more diverse, across space and time would be an effective route to accomplish environmentally-friendly intensification of crop production. Such a novel approach will require better integration of knowledge at the landscape level for increasing agro-biodiversity (focused on interventions outside fields) with strategies diversifying cropping systems to manage weeds and pests (focused on interventions inside fields).

The production and consumption of animal-source foods must be transformed to mitigate negative environmental outcomes, including greenhouse gas emissions and land-use change. However, livestock are also key for food production and for livelihoods in some settings, and they can help preserve biodiversity and certain ecosystems. Previous studies have not yet fully explored sustainability limits to the use of grazing lands for food production in the context of biodiversity. Here we explore 'biodiversity limits' to grassland ruminant production by estimating the meat and milk production from domestic ruminants limited to grazing areas and stocking densities where livestock can contribute to the preservation or restoration of biodiversity. With biodiversity-friendly grazing intensities at 0-20% biomass removal depending on aridity, this take on biodiversity limits corresponds to 9-13% and 26-40% of the current grassland-based milk and meat production, respectively. This equals only 2.2 kg of milk and 0.8 kg of meat per capita per year, globally, but altered management and moving from meat-specialized to meat-and-dairy systems could increase the potential production while still remaining within this approach to biodiversity limits.Grazing lands make important contributions to society, including meat and milk, but there are sustainability limits to their use for production. This study explores milk and meat production from grazing ruminants within biodiversity limits.