ORE Open Research Exeter
TITLE
Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies
AUTHORS
Garnett, T; Appleby, MC; Balmford, A; et al.
JOURNAL
Science
DEPOSITED IN ORE
28 January 2016
This version available at
http://hdl.handle.net/10871/19385
COPYRIGHT AND REUSE
Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies.
A NOTE ON VERSIONS
The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of
publication
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL. xxx • galley printed 27 January, 2016 • • For Issue Date: ???? 1
POLICY FORUM
SCIENCE GALLEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
AGRICULTURE
Sustainable Intensification in
Agriculture: Premises and Policies
T. Garnett
1
, M.C. Appleby
2
, A. Balmford
3
, I.J. Bateman
4
, T.G. Benton
5
, P.Bloomer
6
,
B. Burlingame
7
, M. Dawkins
1
, L. Dolan
1
, D. Fraser
8
, M. Herrero
9
, I. Hoffmann
7
, P.
Smith
10
, P.K. Thornton
11
, C. Toulmin
12
, S.J. Vermeulen
11
, H.C.J. Godfray
1*
Some see SI as too narrowly focused
on production, or even as an outright
contradicti on in terms.
Food security is high on the global policy
agenda. Demand for food is increasing as
populations grow and gain wealth to purchase
more varied and resource-intensive diets.
There is increased competition for land, wa-
ter, energy, and other inputs into food produc-
tion. Climate change poses challenges to ag-
riculture, particularly in developing countries
(1), while many current farming practices
damage the environment and are a major
source of greenhouse gases (GHG). In an in-
creasingly globalized world, food insecurity
in one region can have widespread political
and economic ramifications (2).
These challenges require action through-
out the food system. One response has been a
call to increase food production from existing
farmland in ways that place far less pressure
on the environment and which do not under-
mine our capacity to continue producing food
in the future. This “sustainable intensifica-
tion” (SI) approach is a policy goal for a num-
ber of national and international institutions
(3-5), but also attracts criticism as being too
narrowly focused on production or represent-
ing a contradiction in terms.
The origins of SI lie in discussions about
increasing yields, chiefly of arable crops, in
the face of resource scarcity and environmen-
tal challenges. Our goal here is to articulate a
more sophisticated definition of SI, one that
clarifies the logic on which it rests, and the
context and conditions within which it should
be implemented. We define four underpin-
ning premises of SI, situating it within a
broader framework of priority actions for the
food system. We then explore how SI inter-
faces with other major food system goals and
show how they may guide SI implementation.
We argue that this broad perspective is essen-
tial if SI is to fulfill its goal of helping foster
global food security.
Four Premises Underlying SI
1. The need to increase production. The chal-
lenge of achieving sustainable food security
for all is only in part a supply-side problem (2,
7, 8). Urgent action is also needed on moder-
ating demand for resource intensive foods
(such as meat and dairy products), reducing
food waste, and developing systems of gov-
ernance that improve the efficiency and resil-
ience of the food system as well as making
food accessible and affordable to all.
Nevertheless, overall increases in produc-
tion are essential since no one approach to ad-
dress food insecurity will be fully effective,
given the inevitability of policy failures as
well as the time lags in the demand and supply
dynamics of the food system. It is too risky to
assume otherwise. Yield increases in many
low-income countries are required today;
elsewhere the goal may not necessarily be to
increase yields immediately but to develop the
potential to respond to future increases in de-
mand. Critically, all responses must be envi-
ronmentally sustainable. SI should be seen as
part of a multi-pronged strategy to achieving
sustainable food security rather than an all-en-
compassing solution.
2. Increased production must be met
through higher yields since increasing the
area of land in agriculture carries major en-
vironmental costs. While land usable for agri-
culture exists, it consists mainly of forests,
wetlands, or grasslands, whose conversion
would greatly increase GHG emissions (9)
and the loss of biodiversity and important eco-
system services (10). While less intensive,
generally lower yielding production may gen-
erate local environmental benefits, it is critical
to consider potential indirect consequences, in
particular the risk that land is cleared for agri-
cultural production elsewhere to compensate
for locally lower yields (5).
3. Food security requires as much atten-
tion to increasing environmental sustainabil-
ity as to raising productivity. SI does not mean
business-as-usual food production moderated
by marginal improvements in sustainability.
As we envisage it, SI demands radical rethink-
ing of food production to achieve major re-
ductions in environmental impact. In some ar-
eas increases in yield will be compatible with
environmental improvements. In others, yield
reductions or land reallocation will be needed
to ensure sustainability and deliver benefits
such as wildlife conservation, carbon storage,
flood protection, and recreation. An overall
increase in production does not mean yields
should increase everywhere or at any cost: the
challenge is context- and location-specific.
4. SI denotes a goal but does not specify a
priori how it should be attained or which ag-
ricultural techniques to deploy. The merits of
diverse approaches – conventional, “high-
tech”, agro-ecological, or organic – should be
rigorously tested and assessed, taking bio-
physical and social contexts into account.
Building the social and natural science evi-
dence base to allow formulation of context-
dependent SI strategies is a research priority.
Other Policy Goals Interfacing with SI
Policy makers need to consider multiple goals
for the food system in multifunctional land-
scapes (16). While there will often be syner-
gies, tensions among competing priorities also
arise. Here we highlight five areas which in-
terface with SI and explore ways in which
shared agendas might best be pursued.
1. Biodiversity and land use: By using and
contaminating land and water, agriculture is a
greater threat to biodiversity than any other
human activity (4, 16). One response is to in-
tegrate agriculture and conservation goals
through wildlife friendly “land sharing” prac-
tices. However, since yields are typically
lower, more land is needed for a given output.
This suggests an alternative approach – “land
sparing”, where yields are increased on
farmed land, freeing-up land elsewhere for
conservation (11). SI could involve either ap-
proach, but understanding which is more ben-
eficial, and in what context, is hampered by
1
University of Oxford, Oxford OX13QY UK.
2
World
Society for the Protection of Animals, London
WC1X8HB UK.
3
University of Cambridge, Cambridge
CB23EJ UK.
4
University of East Anglia, Norwich
NR47TJ UK.
5
University of Leeds, Leeds LS29JT UK.
6
Oxfam, Oxford, OX42JY UK.
7
Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome 00153 Italy.
8
University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T1Z4
Canada.
9
International Livestock Research Institute,
Nairobi 00100 Kenya
10
University of Aberdeen,
Aberdeen AB243UU UK.
11
CGIAR, Frederiksberg DK-
1958 Denmark.
12
International Institute for
Environment and Development, London WC1X 8NH
UK.
*
Author for correspondence:
charles.godfray@zoo.ox.ac.uk
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL. xxx • galley printed 27 January, 2016 • • For Issue Date: ???? 2
the shortage of relevant quantitative data. The
practical effectiveness of both approaches
hinges on real-world constraints -coupling on-
farm yield increases to safeguards for conser-
vation elsewhere (in the case of land sparing),
and design and widespread adoption of low-
impact farming approaches (for land sharing).
Successful SI will require (i) establishing how
land-sharing can deliver sufficiently high
yields and multiple ecosystem services; (ii)
quantifying tradeoffs between yields and dif-
ferent environmental benefits and assessing
how best to resolve them across different cir-
cumstances and spatial scales; and (iii) explor-
ing policy and market mechanisms that en-
hance implementation of sharing or sparing
initiatives.
2. Animal welfare: The word “intensifica-
tion” is particularly problematic for those con-
cerned with animal welfare. It is often associ-
ated with forms of production that have
demonstrably negative effects on animal
health and well-being. While attention to
many aspects of welfare can increase produc-
tivity (particularly where low productivity is
caused by disease, insufficient feed, and other
causes of ill health), some strategies, such as
highly selective breeding for extreme levels of
production can produce congenitally harmed
animals and undermine wellbeing in other
ways (12, 13). For us, SI goals are contingent
upon acceptable standards of welfare. In ap-
plying SI to the livestock sector we need to (i)
place SI within a wider ethical framework that
may disbar some potential options, (ii) iden-
tify areas with the greatest potential for joint
SI and welfare gains, and (iii) recognize there
are limits on our ability to meet projected fu-
ture livestock product demand while also
achieving animal welfare and environmental
goals – limits which signal the need for urgent
action to reduce overconsumption and esca-
lating demands.
3. Human nutrition: Food security incor-
porates the need for micronutrient as well as
energy and protein adequacy (14). Progress
on the former has lagged behind efforts to end
hunger. Good human nutrition requires a di-
verse diet. It is important that SI does not re-
sult in narrowed dietary options, especially for
poor consumers. This might occur through ex-
cessive dependence on a few high yielding
commodity crops bred for productivity rather
than for micronutrient quality. Post-harvest
fortification as well as breeding strategies (in-
cluding biofortification) that improve crops’
nutritional content can help mitigate these
problems, but may be counterproductive if
they exacerbate reduced dietary diversity. SI
farming strategies thus need to take nutrition
into account. This requires us to: (i) assess im-
pacts of current production approaches on the
spectrum and adequacy of food available to
local communities, (ii) better understand the
dietary importance for many poor people of
wild foods and often neglected indigenous
crops and livestock, and take this into account
in land use policy, and (iii) apply traditional
and modern breeding techniques to improve
yields of neglected crop and livestock species.
4. Rural economies: In many countries ag-
ricultural policy is inextricably linked with
economic support for rural economies. The
design and operation of agricultural support
could be radically improved, and SI goals
need to be developed within this broader pol-
icy context. We should (i) identify where cur-
rent support mechanisms can be re-orientated
to incentivize SI, (ii) revitalize and reinvent
extension services to provide support required
for SI implementation, and (iii) use modern
information and communications technology
and appropriate financial instruments to ena-
ble food producers applying SI practices to be
more resilient to shocks and responsive to
market signals.
5. Sustainable development: In least-de-
veloped countries and for low income produc-
ers, improving yields and farmer incomes are
priorities but are frequently hampered by in-
sufficient economic, physical, and human
capital, themselves held back by institutional
failure. Targeting investment in agriculture as
an engine of economic growth is receiving
new attention, as is the possibility that low-in-
come countries can orient production along
more sustainable pathways (15). SI needs to
engage with the sustainable development
agenda to (i) identify SI agricultural practices
that strengthen rural communities, improve
smallholder livelihoods and employment, and
avoid negative social and cultural impacts, in-
cluding loss of land tenure and forced migra-
tion; (ii) invest in the social, financial, natural,
and physical capital needed to facilitate SI’s
implementation, and (iii) where sustainability
objectives (e.g. GHG mitigation or biodiver-
sity protection) require actions that may carry
economic costs, develop mechanisms to pay
poor farmers for undertaking such measures.
Conclusion
SI is a new, evolving concept, its meaning and
objectives subject to debate and contest. But
SI is only part of what is needed to improve
food system sustainability and is by no means
synonymous with food security. Both sustain-
ability and food security have multiple social
and ethical (17), as well as environmental di-
mensions. Achieving a sustainable, health en-
hancing food system for all will require more
than just changes in agricultural production,
essential though these are. Equally radical
agendas will need to be pursued to reduce re-
source-intensive consumption and waste, and
improve governance, efficiency, and resili-
ence.
References and Notes:
1. M. Parry, A. Evans, M. W. Rosegrant, T. Wheeler, Climate
Change & Hunger, Responding to the Challenge. (World Food
Programme, Rome, 2009).
2. H. C. J. Godfray et al., Science 327, 812 (Feb 12, 2010).
3. Royal Society, Reaping the Benefits: Science and the
Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. (Royal Society,
London, UK, 2009).
4. Foresight, The Future of Food and Farming. (Government
Office of Science, London, 2011).
5. D. Tilman, C. Balzer, J. Hill, B. L. Befort, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.
S. A. 108, 20260 (Dec, 2011).
6. E. D. Collins, K. Chandrasekaran, A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?
An analysis of the ‘sustainable intensification’ of agriculture.
(Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam, 2012).
7. J. A. Foley et al., Nature 478, 337 (Oct, 2011).
8. A. Sen, Poverty and Famines (Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1981).
9. N. Stern, The Economics of Climate Change. (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007).
10. United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals Report.
(United Nations, New York, 2009).
11. B. Phalan, M. Onial, A. Balmford, R. E. Green, Science 333,
1289 (Sep, 2011).
12. M. S. Dawkins, Why Animals Matter. (Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2011).
13. D. Fraser, Understanding animal welfare: The science in its
cultural context. . (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2008).
14. FAO, An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security.
(FAO, Rome, 2008).
15. FAO, Save and grow; A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable
intensification of smallholder crop production. (FAO, Rome,
2011).
16. IAASTD Agriculture at the Crossroads (Island Press,
Washington DC, 2009)
17. P.B. Thompson (ed.), The Ethics of Intensification (Springer
Verlag, Heidelberg, 2008)
10.1126/science.1234485