Governance, agricultural intensification, and land sparing in tropical South America

Abstract

Significance Tropical South America has forest resources of global significance but exhibits a relatively high rate of deforestation. As agricultural expansion remains the most important cause of forest loss and degradation there, it is important to understand its main drivers. In this paper we address two important questions: How do the quality of governance and agricultural intensification combine to impact the spatial expansion of agriculture? Which aspects of governance are more likely to ensure that agricultural intensification allows sparing land for nature? By distinguishing between conventional and environmental dimensions of governance (which includes also the establishment of protected areas), we investigate which of these two aspects, by interacting with the process of agricultural intensification, is likely to promote land sparing.

High spatial resolution land use and land cover mapping of the Brazilian Legal Amazon in 2008 using Landsat-5/TM and MODIS data

“…This represents more than three times the area occupied by annual agriculture, and also a third of the area occupied by the other classes of pasture. These figures may suggest that if guided by appropriate public policies, it is feasible to induce the expansion of both agriculture and livestock production with a minor impact on deforestation (Sayer and Cassman 2013;Ceddia et al 2014;Villoria et al 2014). …”

Principles Guiding Practice: A Case Study Analysis of the Principles of Sustainable Agriculture for Diverse Farms

“…Adherents argue that ecological agriculture, especially organic agriculture, inherently leads to more land in agriculture because yields are lower than yields in more intensive production systems. Sustainable intensification is therefore characterized by some as "land saving" (Balmford, Green & Scharlemann, 2005: Ceddia, Bardsley, Gomez-y-Paloma, & Sedlacek, 2014Hulme et al, 2013). Like conventional agriculture, intensification relies on the application of a wide range of technologies to meet production needs while preserving land and other natural resources (Barnes & Thomson, 2014;Elliott & Firbank, 2013;Tilman et al, 2011).…”

Farming-Biodiversity Segregation or Integration? Revisiting Land Sparing versus Land Sharing Debate

“…Ceddia et al [17] showed that governance and socioeconomics characteristics in place have deep effects on the occurrence of negative yield-forest loss relationships [17]. Conventional governance that accounts for corruption control, voice and accountability and rule of law, as defined by the World Bank [32] is positively correlated with agricultural expansion mediated by intensification.…”

“…However, yield increase leads to a smaller farm expansion rates in countries that accounted for high index of sustainable governance represented by two different indexes (Environmental Sustainability Index, www.yale.edu/esi, and Environmental Performance Index, www.epi.yale.edu). Therefore, in the presence of environmental governance, yield increased may occur along with shrinking farmlands [17].…”

“…For example, pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers are amongst the greatest cause of water contamination [14] [15]. Critiques on LSP concern the fact that there is a positive effect of yield increase on farmland expansion (Jevons Paradox Hypothesis) [16] [17]; the dynamic relationship among production and economic aspects (there is no fixed targeted yield); the high productivity of some non-intensive methods; the fact that significant biodiversity can be held in intermediate intensive systems; and the importance of social aspects that affects food security beyond gross yield [18]. In this light, non-intensive agricultural systems benefit ecosystems services, such as carbon storage, pollination and pest control [19].…”