Can managed landscapes help biodiversity flourish?

To learn more, follow our live coverage from the Biodiversity COP16.

Food systems are the primary driver of biodiversity loss.

Food systems are vital for our survival.

One of these statements will always be true. The other doesn’t have to be.

According to experts we spoke with at the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16), there are win-win solutions that allow agriculture and nature to not just coexist but help each other thrive.

Agriculture comes to the Biodiversity COP

COP16 is the first UN Biodiversity Conference since the adoption of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in 2022, which highlighted the need to consider all ecosystems.

This marked a major step forward from focusing exclusively on ‘natural’ ecosystems to also including agricultural and urban environments.

“I think the new GBF targets that were adopted in Montreal really show that agricultural land is essential,” says Juan Ramos, senior manager for finance and policy at EcoAgriculture Partners.

“Biodiversity lives everywhere. It doesn’t have a limit to protected areas, so it extends to all landscapes and territories. Providing the needed sustenance – the needed management – in agricultural lands to sustain biodiversity corridors connectivity is essential.”

Now, two years later, we’re starting to see agriculture become a core part of the conversation around biodiversity conservation and restoration.

Embed from Getty Images

“We’re here at COP16, and so many of the sessions are focused on biodiversity and agricultural interventions that really play hand in hand to improve both at the same time,” says Victoria Rachmaninoff, a research associate in restoration policy and biodiversity at the World Resources Institute.

“I would say 10 years ago, that discussion was pretty different,” she reflects.

“We’ve seen that in Initiative 20×20. The initiative started in 2014 and at that time, there wasn’t really this large acceptance of agriculture as a restoration intervention.”

Importantly, this isn’t an either/or situation. As Rachmaninoff explains, the focus is on interventions that can improve both agriculture and biodiversity at the same time – a sentiment echoed by other experts.

“We can make really conscious decisions about whether we’re going to plant monocultures that are really vulnerable to all kinds of challenges like pests, disease – you name it,” says Genna Tesdall, director of Young Professionals for Agricultural Development (YPARD).

“Or we can create really diverse systems where we’re planting lots of different things that support insect life, soil microbes and a diverse diet.”

Often, these win-win solutions are not about having everything on the same land, but ensuring all the elements of a landscape work together to support biodiversity and people, according to Ramos.

“A landscape approach or territorial approach is needed. We at EcoAgriculture Partners and the 1000 Landscapes for One Billion people initiative work on this to think about how do you properly coordinate and plan territories so that they’re multifunctional,” he says.

“If you have agriculture in some place, you need to have processing in another, you need to have conservation in another, but they’re all interdependent. If you only focus on the agricultural component, then the ecosystem services that you need, like pollination and water, are simply not going to be there if you continue to destroy conservation areas.”

This same idea can be taken to the farm level. Introducing trees, for example, can provide shade and protection to other crops, while maintaining wetlands can reduce flood risk and ensure a steady water supply.

“We know that leaving wetlands on farms will often reduce the flooding risk that producers have on those farms, and so this is a clear win-win: you are ensuring an approach that will prevent large-scale crop loss during these large climactic events,” says Rachmaninoff.

Shifting incentives

Rachmaninoff says one of the biggest challenges to biodiversity-positive agriculture right now is subsidies for destructive activities.

Right now, governments around the world are spending USD 635 billion a year in direct subsidies for agriculture, according to a World Bank report.

These drive the excessive use of fertilizers, which can degrade soil and water, and support products such as soybeans, palm oil and beef, which can lead to deforestation, the report says.

“We know that many of the practices that currently exist are very negative in the agricultural space for biodiversity, and many of the incentives are going towards these anti-nature incentives,” says Rachmaninoff.

However, simply cutting these subsidies is not an option if we want a just transition, she points out.

“We also need to focus on just transitions. We can’t just cut these incentives because a lot of producers rely on them, including very small-scale agricultural producers where this is a question of having food to feed their families.”

Instead, Rachmaninoff believes part of the answer could be biodiversity-specific financing mechanisms like payments for ecosystem services. However, numerous other solutions are already being practiced by farmers and could be scaled up as they receive more support.

“Some of these techniques like composting or seed saving – now that there’s momentum around biodiversity, it feels like we’re finally getting recognized for something that we have been doing and maybe was considered not modern before,” says Tesdall.

“So, that can be a really encouraging narrative. People would say, ‘Okay, I can do this and I can take it further now,’ instead of needing to change in another direction.”

What’s more, that narrative, and the direction of agriculture and biodiversity, are being strongly influenced by those who will be tasked with making it happen – young farmers.

In August, nearly 170 young rural people from across Latin America and the Caribbean gathered in Nuquí, Colombia, for the Rural Youth in Peace with Nature summit. There, they formulated a united manifesto of youth voices, which has now come to COP16.

“This COP has been very special as the community has some space to bring all the voices,” says Sebastian Pedraza, chair of the Steering Committee and Latin America regional coordinator at YPARD.

“In our case, we had the opportunity with other youth organizations and some local organizations in Colombia to organize a rural youth summit and to bring the voices of rural youth – who are already leading initiatives that are saving the planet – here to COP, where they are not usually.”

Today, more than a third of all land and three-quarters of all freshwater resources are devoted to crop or livestock production. This means we simply cannot afford to ignore agricultural land when it comes to biodiversity conservation and restoration.

“We can use this land that has already been converted and is already being used for agriculture to make sure that we are actually meeting some of these biodiversity targets,” says Rachmaninoff.

“We cannot meet our biodiversity targets without an inclusive agricultural approach.”