Food and Biodiversity

The food and biodiversity crises are and will continue to be the biggest problems facing the world for the next 100 years at least.  Currently, of the 7 billion humans on the planet roughly 1 billion live in food poverty, malnourished.  At the same time, over the past 100 years the greatest cause of extinctions has been the conversion of natural habitats for human uses, the most important human use being agriculture.  Our current system of food production and distribution has the potential to be greatly improved without large damages to biodiversity however, with the population predicted to rise to around 9 billion by 2050 and as individuals across the world demand a higher quality diet consisting of more meat, improvements to the current system will be insufficient to prevent more damage to the world’s biodiversity.  The question which scientists should help answer is ‘how to produce a set yield at the lowest possible cost to biodiversity?’.

A consideration of the current situation reveals that there is potential for the relief of food poverty without damage to biodiversity.  Food is not equally distributed throughout the world and, whilst 1 billion people live in food poverty, another billion suffer from obesity.  It is therefore clear that a more fair or ‘equitable’ distribution of the food produced by the world could help alleviate food poverty.  Secondly, much of the food we produce we do not eat.  I am not only talking about food waste through supermarket discard or food lost due to lack of infrastructure in developing countries (e.g. food which expires before consumption due to lack of good storage and distribution infrastructure).  I also refer to food crops which are fed to animals for the production of meat for example, 7 kilograms of grain are required to produce 1 kilogram of beef.  As a result, 7 times more land is needed to produce the grain to feed people on meat than on grain directly.  Analogously, any potential food crops, or land which could be used to grow food crops, which are used for biofuels instead of human consumption should be expected to result in increased land conversion as land elsewhere is converted to fill the gap of foregone food production.  Therefore, if the whole world ate a vegetarian diet and if food equity was greatly increased then it would be possible to feed the current population without further land conversion.

The food demand of the planet is the product of the world population and the per capita (or individual) food demand.  Unfortunately both of these are set to rise as the world population approaches 9 billion and Eastern countries approach a Western, meat rich diet.  As a result conservationists are left to inform policy makers how this increasing world demand can be met at least harm to biodiversity.  Recently this has given rise to a debate which highlights interesting aspects of our attitude towards science.  The debate revolves around the following question: is it better to farm at a lower intensity, producing less food per hectare but maintaining more biodiversity on-farm and using more land or is it better to farm at a higher intensity, preserving less on-farm biodiversity but using less land (therefore sparing more ‘pristine’ habitat)?  If I were to ask you whether it would be best to farm less land intensively or more land in a wildlife friendly way to produce the same yield then what would you say?  There can only be one correct answer: I need more information.  The answer to this question depends on how much biodiversity survives on wildlife friendly farms and how the yield differs between these farms.  So far, work in Ghana and India has supported the idea that farming some land intensively and sparing other natural land is best.  Many people, including scientists, have objected to this finding for many reasons, none of which are, in my opinion, good reasons.  People look at a monoculture of coffee and cannot believe that this is better for biodiversity than coffee grown organically amongst native trees which are preserved.  This is precisely where science excels, to show not what ‘feels’ right but what is right.  So far, as I have stated, the answer appears to be land sparing.

Considering how to use the agricultural tools available (see above) is one issue.  Another is deciding which agricultural tools to use.  More specifically, should GM crops be used  After attending a debate regarding the future of GM crops I was surprised by the reaction of many members of the audience, it was one of fear, fear that GM crops will turn out to be a dangerous mistake.  I believe it is the role of conservation scientists (I include agricultural geneticists in this category) to explain, in a way in which the general public are happy with, why, in their scientific opinion, GM crops are safe.

In conclusion, feeding the world and saving all species will be incompatible.  Conservation scientists have the important role of conducting good quality research addressing the relevant problems such that policy makers can make better informed decisions

For a brief review of the land sparing and wildlife friendly farming debate see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/sep/02/farming-biodiversity-conservation-nature-reserves.