What would the world look like if we could decide – globally and collectively – to allocate all our land in the optimal way? Where would we grow food and find water, and what areas would we leave to nature?
Researchers in Germany have calculated optimal land use configurations that could work under future climate conditions. Their study, published in the journal PNAS, suggests that rejigging where we grow food could almost triple crop production while maintaining supplies of freshwater and stores of carbon.
It’s a radical suggestion that isn’t likely to ever happen, but a thought experiment like this provides an insight into the scale of transformation that may be required to maintain a healthy planet while adapting to a changing climate and a growing population.
Read Also
Farming still has digital walls to scale
Canadian farms still face the same obstacles to adopting digital agriculture technology, despite the years industry and policy makers have had to break them down.
After all, land use change is a key driver of biodiversity loss. With eight billion humans to feed, more than a third of the world’s land surface and about three quarters of freshwater resources are now devoted to crop or livestock production, leading to a significant drop in the abundance of many native species.
The new study calculates the optimal configuration of global land-use under different climate change scenarios until the end of this century. It targets three key indicators: the total carbon stored in trees, wetlands and so on, which is an indicator of climate regulation and mitigation; crop production as proxy for food supply; and available runoff indicating freshwater availability.
The study’s authors then used an optimization algorithm to identify how land could be best allocated to reach a point at which the global totals of each of these three objectives could not increase without declines in the other two – that is, the optimum use of land.
What might this mean in practice? The research identified some global priority areas where, under the analysis’s conditions, natural habitats could regrow. Those are predominantly areas currently used for farming, but in their natural state would have been forests.
To compensate for the regrowth of forests, the optimization suggests a significant expansion of croplands in temperate regions including the southern U.S. and Mexico, western Europe, South Africa, eastern China and the coastal regions of Australia.
New pasture would be created from cropland in India and from natural land in eastern and southern Africa and in regions south of the Sahara.
More controversially, the optimization suggests converting natural land in the Amazon basin into pasture. This is because long-term climate modelling suggests the rainforest is becoming drier anyway and even risks “tipping” into more savanna-like conditions.
Carbon storage, freshwater and food supply are important, but they are just three of the many ecosystem services provided by nature. If others – such as flood management, pollination or even human recreation – were factored in, it might paint a very different picture and shift the optimization boundaries.
The authors briefly mention the potential impact that large-scale land use conversions may have on biodiversity, for instance, a crucial aspect of these services. But an exercise like this is unable to capture the nuances of impacts on threatened species, let alone on the movement and establishment of invasive species.
It’s also tough to see the suggested land use as feasible or pragmatic when geopolitical and socio-economic factors tend to drive decisions on what to do with land. For example, the optimization suggests more cropland in most of Great Britain, with parts of Scotland and southern and eastern England left to nature. But this would require significant policy and socio-culture change in a country where 52 per cent of land is already enclosed farmland and only 11 per cent is woodland.
Only a very brave politician would suggest abandoning British farms, or taking iconic woodlands or moorland grazed by sheep and turning them into wheat fields.
The challenges might be even greater in a country like India, which the optimization suggests should be converted to pasture. This would be a radical overhaul in a country where 70 per cent of rural households still depend on agriculture, predominantly growing crops.
The authors acknowledge that such drastic land-use changes over such extended regions are unrealistic. East Africa won’t suddenly become a huge livestock farm, and northern states in the U.S. won’t be reforested overnight. This remains a theoretical exercise.
For land use optimization to succeed in practice, any transformations will need to consider both the local policy and practice context of each region.
This study is, however, a good example of the sort of big picture thinking required in the longer term and provides a theoretical framework that gives an inkling of the direction and scale of change that may eventually need to be considered.
– This article first appeared in the Conversation, by Reuters. Dr. Deepa Senapathi is the Head of Department of Sustainable Land Management at the University of Reading.
