According to a new blueprint for integrating nature recovery and farming supported by wildE, setting aside at least 20% of agricultural landscapes for rewilding and adopting wildlife friendly practices on remaining farmland could reverse biodiversity declines while maintaining food production.
Since the 1940s, intensification of farming has been critical for increasing crop yields and livestock production. However, this has significantly contributed to declines in biodiversity and in turn threatens long-term farm productivity through loss of pollination and soil, natural pest control, as well as water and nutrient retention.
Professor James Bullock, an ecologist at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH), one of the authors of the study, said: “Reversing biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems is essential both for nature as well as long-term global food security. But there is no single silver bullet for nature recovery and so far it has been unclear how to integrate rewilding into agricultural landscapes.
“Our proposed approach moves beyond land sparing versus land sharing. We believe rewilding can be interwoven into agricultural landscapes and could be key to maintaining food production in a way that is sustainable in the long term for people and the planet.”
Allocating land for nature
The authors of the study, published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, propose:
- Setting aside a total of at least 20% agricultural land for rewilding – ‘core conservation areas’ – including habitat creation, tree planting and introduction of key animal and plant species. These nature areas adjacent to remaining farmland would ideally be made up of large plots of land, with the aim of increasing resilience, biodiversity and ecosystem services.
- Connecting these rewilded areas with ‘green corridors’ made up of small forest islands, tracts of scrubland and grassland, as well as hedgerows and ponds within the remaining agricultural land.
- Wildlife-friendly measures on many small areas of the remaining agricultural land, including the green corridors, refuges and nesting sites for many animals, and perches for birds. These small areas combined would make up a total of at least 10% of the area of agricultural fields. Added to the set-aside land, this would achieve the goal of restoration of 30% of degraded land agreed by countries under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
- Combining rewilding measures with less damaging farming techniques on the remaining agricultural land, including reduced fertiliser and pesticide use, as well as sowing flower strips for pollinators and invertebrates that provide natural pest control.
More extensive, wilder livestock systems would allow free-range grazing which can enhance dispersal of seeds and beneficial disturbance of vegetation and soil.
While many habitats in Europe may be unsuitable for large top predators such as bears and large herbivores such as bison, they may benefit from the introduction of smaller species like the lynx, wildcat and European hare which would enhance biodiversity and help create complex, resilient ecosystems.
Multiple benefits
The researchers point out that rewilding can increase crop yields on surrounding agricultural land through greater soil protection, natural pest control and pollination. This would partially compensate for the loss of overall production due to setting aside some agricultural land for rewilding .
Farmers may compensate for the potential loss of production locally by:
- Increasing the quality and resilience of crop yield to earn more income.
- Cutting on-farm costs by lowering the intensity of farming activities, including reducing inputs such as fertilisers, pesticides and soil amendments.
- Taking advantage of any government payments and tax breaks for supporting biodiversity and ecosystem services are available (this varies across countries).
Professor José María Rey Benayas of the University of Alcalá, near Madrid, lead author of the study, said: “Integrating rewilding approaches with farming could create agroecological landscapes that are biodiverse, resilient and functionally connected.
“While setting aside land for nature recovery could potentially be made a legal requirement for farmers and landowners, there is more likely to be acceptance and success of rewilding if there are incentives in the form of payments for ecosystem services and tax deductions.”
Collective action
The authors acknowledge that it is likely that rewilding will not bring the same benefits for all farm systems, so say it would be necessary for smaller farms to act collectively in order to achieve significant action at large scales.
The main agricultural landscapes that could benefit largely from rewilding are the most intensive and degraded areas where little biodiversity remains and are likely at most risk of ecological collapse, which are mainly in developed countries.
There would be comparatively fewer benefits in landscapes where a substantial number of natural ecosystems remain and/or there are less intensive agricultural systems, which are common in some developing countries including those areas managed by Indigenous people.