Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates

World Development Vol. xx, pp. xxx–xxx, 2017 0305-750X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

Development Review

Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates OLE MERTZ and CHARLOTTE FILT MERTENS* University of Copenhagen, Denmark Summary. — The need for developing land sparing or land sharing policies for protecting the environment has been a polarized debate in the scientific literature. Some studies show that ‘‘spared” landscapes with clearly separated intensive agriculture and pristine forest are better for biodiversity and other ecosystem services, whereas others demonstrate the benefits of ‘‘shared” mosaic landscapes composed of a mix of forest types, agricultural fields, grassland, and plantations. Increasingly, these scientific views have been depolarized, recognizing that both shared and spared landscapes have a role to play, depending on the context. However, it is less clear from the literature what drives actual policy-making related to land sparing and land sharing in developing countries and what the outcomes of these policies are. We therefore reviewed the international peer-reviewed literature for evidence of policies that aim at land sparing or land sharing in developing countries, the driving forces behind these policies and their outcomes. We also searched for evidence of whether the scientific debates have had an effect on land policy-making and explored the hypothesis that land sparing is the dominant land policy paradigm. We show that all countries represented in the studies have land sparing policies and half of them also have land sharing policies, although the latter appear inferior and under-funded. Drivers of land policies are very diverse, ranging from international commitments in conventions to various national-level pressures, but there is little evidence that scientific results have affected these policies. The policy outcomes in terms of ecosystem services and livelihoods are also very diverse. We conclude based on the studies reviewed that context is indeed very important for understanding different design and outcomes of land sparing and land sharing policies and that more evidence is needed on the processes for integration of rapidly evolving scientific debates in land policy-making in developing countries. Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Key words — land sparing, land sharing, land use policy, conservation, agricultural intensification, science-policy interface

1. INTRODUCTION

areas, e.g., in the Brazilian Amazon, whereas land sparing might work in areas where land use has already been intensified due to land scarcity (Barretto, Berndes, Sparovek, & Wirsenius, 2013). Similarly, green revolution scenarios for Africa may not be land sparing under conditions of global market integration and low yields (Hertel et al., 2014). Moreover, Ceddia, Bardsley, Gomez-y-Paloma, and Sedlacek (2014) added nuance to this debate by showing that in six South American countries, high governance scores caused agricultural intensification to lead to further expansion, thus confirming the so-called Jevon’s paradox whereby higher efficiency in resource use does not necessarily lead to a decline in demand for that resource (e.g., Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2011). In another line of debate, several papers analyzed whether ‘‘spared” landscapes without any human interference are better at conserving natural forests and habitats for endangered species than ‘‘shared” landscapes, where agriculture and forests are both present and interact, such as ‘‘wild-life friendly farming” promoted in Europe and in shifting cultivation or other agroforestry systems in the tropics (Balmford et al., 2005; Green, Cornell, Scharlemann, & Balmford, 2005; Mattison & Norris, 2005). This was done without much reference to the other debate (that intensification may indeed have

One of the fundamental trade-offs between environmental and development policies is related to how we use land for either protection of nature and ecosystem services or for a variety of human activities that require considerable modification of the land cover. Few people will question that we need at least some elements of both, but how to balance this tradeoff has been debated intensively in the literature. One of the debates focuses on the assumption that intensified agriculture would reduce deforestation as demand for land would decrease with higher yields, a relationship that is based on counterfactual scenarios of how much land would have been needed for current agricultural production levels without intensification (Ausubel, Wernick, & Waggoner, 2013; Burney, Davis, & Lobell, 2010). This is also known as the ‘‘Borlaug hypothesis” (Pirard & Belna, 2012; Rudel et al., 2009) emanating from the proposed win–win solutions of the Green Revolution and projections of future cropland needs (Balmford, Green, & Scharlemann, 2005). Indeed, the Green Revolution has been shown to be land sparing (Hertel, Ramankutty, & Baldos, 2014), but market forces, land claims, and economic development also stimulate expansion even under intensified agriculture with high productivity and it is uncertain how much land sparing can be achieved in developing countries in the future (e.g., multiple studies in the book by Angelsen & Kaimowitz, 2001; Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2011; Meyfroidt et al., 2014; Rudel et al., 2009). These issues have been shown to be particularly prevalent in so-called frontier

* This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The research contributes to the Global Land Programme, https://glp.earth/. Final revision accepted: May 10, 2017. 1

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

2

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

the opposite effect), although externalities of intensification such as the use of GMOs and excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides are recognized in the literature advocating land sparing (Green et al., 2005). The result was a surge in research and new empirical evidence from case studies (e.g., Gibson et al., 2011; Phalan, Onial, Balmford, & Green, 2011) suggesting that intensification of agriculture on existing farmland would be needed to avoid further agricultural expansion. This spurred a strong counter reaction from research demonstrating that biodiversity can be just as high – or even higher – in mosaic landscapes with low-intensity agriculture such as agroforestry and shifting cultivation as long as oldgrowth forests are maintained to a certain extent (Berry et al., 2010; Padoch & Pinedo-Vasquez, 2010; Rerkasem et al., 2009; Xu, Lebel, & Sturgeon, 2009) and that agroecological approaches and wild-life friendly farming would overall be better for biodiversity (Kremen, 2015; Kremen & Miles, 2012; Perfecto & Vandermeer, 2008, 2010). Several of the biodiversity studies concluding that sparing would be most beneficial were also criticized for using too limited plot-level data to derive landscape-level outcomes (von Wehrden et al., 2014). From the beginning, some authors cautioned against too rigorous and uncritical application of either land sparing or land sharing (Fischer et al., 2008) and more recently, it has been argued that such polarized debates are not productive (Tscharntke et al., 2012). For example, Navin Ramankutty has at Global Land Programme conferences attempted to lay the heated debates on whether land sparing or land sharing is best to rest by stating that he was in favor of ‘‘land shparing”. The point is that both shared and spared landscapes have functions, especially when it comes to looking beyond biodiversity and focusing on a broader range of ecosystem services (Baudron & Giller, 2014; Fischer et al., 2014; Grau, Kuemmerle, & Macchi, 2013), and it has been suggested that the term ‘‘wildlife-friendly farming” should be reframed as ‘‘environmentally friendly farming” (Ramankutty & Rhemtulla, 2012). Moreover, it is not evident that following ‘‘pure” sparing or sharing approaches will lead to optimal conservation and production outcomes (Butsic & Kuemmerle, 2015; Fischer et al., 2008; Paul & Knoke, 2015; Ramı´rez & Simonetti, 2011) and the best choices are evidently also very context specific, depending on which ecosystem services are most relevant (Law & Wilson, 2015) and how intense the conflicts between conservation and agriculture are (Shackelford, Steward, German, Sait, & Benton, 2015). Kremen (2015) argues that based on a review of 21 cases and the wider literature on land sparing and land sharing, this terminology should be abandoned as it is not productive for the development of policy. Instead, sustainable intensification of agriculture that will have to take different forms in different contexts is suggested as an alternative terminology (Kremen, 2015). Although this may not be fully agreed on by the authors originally suggesting the land sparing-land sharing framework (Balmford, Green, & Phalan, 2015; Phalan, Green, & Balmford, 2014), the scientific debate does seem to be converging toward more agreement and looking for solutions to engage the best of both worlds for optimization of land use policies related to agriculture and nature conservation. However interesting these scientific debates may be, they have considered much less how actual policies related to land sparing and land sharing are developed and implemented as well as how effective such policies are. In most developing countries, for example, it appears that land sparing is more or less directly a development goal (Phelps, Carrasco, Webb,

Koh, & Pascual, 2013) as there are often explicit policies on both conservation of forests in some areas and intensification of agriculture in others (Kremen, 2015). Several studies demonstrate that policy decisions on land sparing may not lead to the intended outcomes (Meyfroidt et al., 2014; Phelps et al., 2013) and while this may be a result of inadequate understanding of the complex land use dynamics at play, it may also be a result of how policies have little impact or relevance for the reality of local people or because of disconnects between development and environmental policymaking (DeFries & Rosenzweig, 2010; Vongvisouk, Castella et al., 2016). It has been argued that although policies set clear guidelines for land sparing approaches, the outcome is sometimes that neither sparing nor sharing is occurring as more or less intensive agriculture is spreading at the expense of both natural forests and shared landscapes (Barrett, Travis, & Dasgupta, 2011; Ferraro, Hanauer, & Sims, 2011; Hansen & Mertz, 2006; Vongvisouk, Broegaard et al., 2016). On the other hand, there is also evidence that some land policies may provide the best of both land sparing and land sharing (Montoya-Molina et al., 2016). These diverse experiences highlight the need to obtain an overview of which policies are pursued where and how successful they are in achieving the ultimate goals of development policies for reducing poverty and environmental policies aimed at conserving and protecting valuable natural resources and habitats. Moreover, it would be highly useful to understand to what extent the current policies are actually influenced by the scientific debates of a more nuanced approach to land sparing and land sharing. The hypothesis here is that unfortunately there may be little uptake of such debates and that policy tends to favor scientific results that are in line with overall political goals as a century of policy of shifting cultivation in Southeast Asia has shown (Fox et al., 2009; Mertz & Bruun, 2017; Padoch & PinedoVasquez, 2010). The aim of this paper is therefore first to provide an overview of actual land sparing and land sharing policies in developing countries and their outcomes based on a review of the scientific literature that uses the terms land sparing and land sharing. We examine the scientific evidence for what drives land sparing and/or land sharing policy-making in developing countries and specifically look at whether there is any evidence that the scientific debates have had an effect on land policymaking and implementation. Finally, we explore the hypothesis that land sparing remains the dominant land policy paradigm despite mounting scientific evidence that more nuanced approaches are needed. 2. METHODS In order to obtain an overview of the current state of the knowledge in the peer reviewed literature on land sparing and land sharing policies in developing countries, it was decided to limit the search to literature indexed in Web of Science and Scopus. The search string ‘‘land sparing” or ‘‘land sharing” under [Topic] was thus implemented in Web of Science ‘‘All databases” on February 18th 2016 and redone on July 12th 2016. The two searches yielded a total of 196 records. The same search was implemented in Scopus (www. scopus.com) on 12th July 2016 returning 205 records. All records were imported into EndNote for further processing. The selection of records followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow procedure for systematic reviews (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2010) as outlined in Table 1.

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

LAND SPARING AND LAND SHARING POLICIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

3

Table 1. Steps in record selection based on the PRISMA procedure (Moher et al., 2010) for the search string ‘‘land sparing” or ‘‘land sharing”. Adapted to the study objectives of the present paper Steps in article selection 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Number of articles

Records identified in Web of Science and Scopus Additional records identified through other sources Records screened after duplicates removed Records excluded (see criteria in text) Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (a) Case studies (core collection) (b) Reviews with systematic search protocol (c) Conceptual and opinion studies, reviews without systematic search protocol 6. Full-text articles excluded, reasons for exclusions provided in Tables 2, S1 and S3 (a) Case studies (core collection) (b) Reviews with systematic search protocol (c) Conceptual and opinion studies, reviews without systematic search protocol 7. Studies included in analysis of case studies, see Tables S1 and S2

Initially, records were screened based on the title and abstract, and records were excluded from the core of the review according to the following criteria (step 4 in Table 1):  Records on non-relevant topics (e.g., sharing of land by individuals, land sharing of infrastructure (e.g., solar cells) with other land uses, or two or more crops sharing land). Land sparing/sharing studies analyzing purely intra-urban land uses were also excluded.  Records reporting on processes in agricultural systems without having land sharing and/or sparing comparison as an objective.  All records reporting on specific case studies from what the World Bank defines as ‘‘High Income” countries (https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519, checked July 12th 2016) as well as all records reporting on European Union member countries as not all are high income countries. Meta-studies limited to high income countries were also excluded.  Records reviewing individual articles or books The remaining records were grouped into three types (Table 1): (a) Case studies or collections of case studies that did not constitute a review. Cases were at various levels, ranging from local, national to, in a few cases, sub-continental. These records were considered to be the core of the collection to extract information on links between science debates and policy implementation in developing countries. (b) Records that included studies at the global level (e.g., modeling or remote sensing analyses), conceptual studies of general interest, and shorter position papers. These records were scanned for information on specific policies and impact of research. (c) Records with systematic reviews or meta-studies that related to different aspects of the land sparing-land sharing debate. These records were assessed first to position the current review and to extract any aggregate-level information on science-policy linkages captured in the review process. The full text records were assessed in a three step process: 1. Introduction, study area description and conclusion were first read to check overall relevance. 2. The search terms ‘‘polic”, ‘‘law”, ‘‘govern”, ‘‘sparing” and ‘‘sharing” were applied to assess specific points in the paper where the analysis dealt with policy, legislative and governance issues in relationship to land sparing/sharing. In addition, the name of the country or sub-national unit addressed was searched to capture named policies mentioned in case the other five search words were not used.

401 0 224 90 132 75 8 49 92 40 8 44 40

3. Based on the first two steps the paper was either excluded or the full text read. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the policy analyses in the records and the relatively small size of the core collection of papers, no statistical analysis of the results was attempted apart from some descriptive distributions of countries and policies analyzed. We also emphasize that our use of the terms ‘‘land sparing policies” and ‘‘land sharing policies” represent our interpretation of the policies as being either or (or both) since most countries do not explicitly label their policies as sparing or sharing. Moreover, even if conservation policies tend to have conservation goals only and agricultural policies focus on intensification, we have interpreted these as being land sparing or sharing if the authors of papers have assessed the combined effect of policies. 3. POLICIES ON LAND SPARING AND LAND SHARING The main outcome of the literature search on land sparing and land sharing is that while this literature makes repeated and strong policy recommendations, there is a paucity of studies that try to make the link between these debates and actual policy uptake of the scientific results. Moreover, although there are many studies that mention policies, relatively few of them analyze specific land use policies in terms of how they have been developed and whether they are part of conscious strategies to promote land sparing, land sharing or both. (a) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses None of the eight identified reviews that make use of some form of systematic review protocol provided analysis of policies but since reviews often aim at some policy impact by providing an overview of a field they are briefly addressed here. Four of the reviews do relate to policy issues (Kremen, 2015; Kremen & Miles, 2012; Law & Wilson, 2015; Ramı´rez & Simonetti, 2011), mainly by recommending policy measures for either promoting land sparing or land sharing (Table 2). One of the reviews analyses land sparing and land sharing as policy objectives (Law & Wilson, 2015), but does not clarify whether these are actual policies or rather the way things are done. Indeed, they state that ‘‘policy objectives were typically not made explicitly” and they argue that what really matters is to consider the context in which the policies are made (Law & Wilson, 2015) rather than trying to blindly follow ideologies of land sparing or land sharing. This is supported by

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

4

Reference

Objective

No. of cases reviewed

Region(s) considered

Review conclusion

Policy elements

Ramı´rez and Simonetti (2011)

To evaluate mammal diversity in forests and plantations

71 cases of forest-plantation or plantation-plantation comparisons

Global

Recommends wildlife friendly farming in productive areas. Limited information on specific policies

Kremen and Miles (2012)

Comparing ecological performance (ecosystem services) of diversified and conventional agriculture Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production

Not specified, but systematic search in Web of Science

Global

53 cases

Global

Mastrangelo et al. (2014)

Analysis of environmental service multi-functionality and conceptualization

90 cases found, 29 selected

Global

von Wehrden et al. (2014)

Realigning sparing/sharing research to conservation management scales and identifying the types of landscape under which sparing or sharing are most likely to be successful strategies for balancing agricultural production and biodiversity conservation To assess how ecological restoration affects biodiversity and supply of ecosystem services in a broad range of agroecosystems around the world through meta-analysis To evaluate the land-sparing/ land-sharing framework for policy purposes. Reviews ecological studies on LS/S Understand which contexts have been included in LS/S research

96 publications, 21 in core review

Global

Structurally complex plantations are better for mammal diversity than ‘‘clean” plantations. In a few cases even better than native forests Ecosystem services and reduced externalities from diversified systems may balance out the lower yields compared to conventional systems Little evidence on the impacts of bioenergy to agrodiversity and the land sparing/sharing debate The methodology used to assess multi-functionality affects policy recommendations as a clear, comprehensive, and operative definition of multi-functionality is lacking Argues that many biodiversity assessments lead to land sparing recommendations because they use too limited plot data that cannot be meaningfully related to the landscape level

54 cases (out of 1590 records in first search)

Global

Cannot conclude whether ecological restoration following a land sparing or a land sharing approach is best

Limited information on specific policies

21 cases; 8 that support land sparing; 5 support land sharing; 6 support none of them; 2 have mixed results Articles citing Green et al. (2005). 362 of which 26 compared LS/S policies in terms of biodiversity and agricultural outputs

Global

That the LS/S framework is too simple and inadequate for informing policy

Global

Land sparing is generally preferred policy if yield improvement would not affect biodiversity

General policy recommendations, argues that the LS/S is not that helpful. Limited information on specific policies Refers to how studies evaluate policies more than how policies are affected by the studies. Limited information on specific policies

Immerzeel, Verweij, van der Hilst, and Faaij (2014)

Barral, Rey Benayas, Meli, and Maceira (2015)

Kremen (2015)

Law and Wilson (2015)

More research funding for agroecological approaches. Limited information on specific policies Limited information on specific policies but relevant for perspectives in a scenario with more biofuel Limited information on specific policies

Limited information on specific policies

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

Table 2. Overview of the eight review articles on the land sparing and land sharing (LS/S) debate that are based on systematic review protocols. None of the reviews provided information on specific land sparing or land sharing policies, but they all provide important elements for understanding the scientific debate on LS/S and for deriving policy recommendations

Country or region Land sparing policies

Land sharing policies

Policy (in) coherence

Ecosystem outcomes

Livelihood outcomes

Evidence of science-based policy

Reference

Africa

Agroforestry as land sparing

–

–

–

–

(Minang et al., 2014)

Argentina

Promoting intensification with soy bean

Colonization: Extensive cattle ranging in poor areas

Reduced deforestation from land sparing

Out-migration from land sparing areas

–

(Grau, Gasparri, & Aide, 2008)

Energy substitution policies promote biofuels as part of intensification

Intensification identified as a cause of deforestation

–

–

–

(Pirard & Belna, 2012)

–

Forest law accepts silvo-pastures and traditional pasture if some forest cover is maintained Land zoning has category for ‘‘sustainable use” with low intensity Shared use areas and requirement for set-aside for sustainable use on private lands –

Agroforestry by many seen as land sharing Different approaches depending on population density and composition Not clear, but the REDD+ policy document analyzed appears to be somewhat contradictory Forest law does not account for high biodiversity in natural grasslands Forest law does not account for high biodiversity in natural grasslands –

–

–

–

Cropland expansion constrained by zonation law, but natural grasslands not well protected –

–

–

(Macchi, Ricardo Grau, Zelaya, & Marinaro, 2013) (Macchi et al., 2016)

–

–

(Scariot, 2013)

Deforestation

–

–

(Laurance et al., 2014)

No species extinctions despite only 10% forest cover in southern Bahia Reduced deforestation in old settlements, but not in new frontier settlements

–

–

(Schroth et al., 2011)

More wealth in old settlements, more diversity in new

–

(Eloy et al., 2012)

–

–

(Macedo et al., 2012)

–

Conservation and intensification Reduced rate of deforestation policies complement each other, but effect supported by collapse of commodity markets Successful in parts of the country –

–

–

(Barretto et al., 2013)

–

–

–

–

(Cohn et al., 2014)

–

Numerous policies with the same Reduced deforestation rate aim to stop deforestation

–

–

(Meyfroidt et al., 2014)

Agroforestry also promoted

No contradiction as agroforestry Deforestation rate declined also focuses on high productivity. But much less focus and funds for land sharing – Birds are affected by any level of farming – Little land in study area left to spare. Silvo-pastoral systems conserve remaining forest fragments Increasing agricultural rent likely – to cause expansion – costs of conservation will increase. Important to find break-even point.

–

Land sharing less well-known by (Cialdella et al., 2015) policy-makers and stakeholders

–

–

(Dotta et al., 2016)

–

–

(Montoya-Molina et al., 2016)

–

–

(Phelps et al., 2013)

Forest law, REDD+, protected areas Brazil

Federal conservation system: integral protection Federal conservation; Bounded resource extraction Federal and provincial (Bahia) conservation REDD+ programs to incentivize reduced shifting cultivation and cattle ranging though intensification Deforestation ban and intensification on degraded lands

Colombia

Congo, DRC

Conservation and agricultural intensification Potential policy impact: tax on conventional pasture cattle or subsidy for semi-intensive pasture Forest Code enforced; Land registry; credit restrictions; soy and cattle moratoria Forest Code enforced; Land registry; blacklisting of municipalities with high deforestation Forest code and Aichi target 11 of the CBD Intensive silvo-pastoral systems

Support of cocoa agroforests Forest code: Requirements for set-aside for sustainable use on private lands –

– Silvo-pastoral systems also serve land sharing purposes

Forest conservation and – agricultural intensification, e.g., REDD+. Land use planning and land tenure reform

Infrastructure development disrupts land sparing intentions Both approaches appear to work in different areas Focus on areas close to roads. Forest code not enforced in agricultural frontiers

Reduced deforestation and GHG emissions

LAND SPARING AND LAND SHARING POLICIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

(continued on next page)

5

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

Table 3. Overview of policies promoting land sparing and/or land sharing and their outcomes as identified in articles selected for full analysis in the review. In some cases policies are mentioned by articles in general terms, in other specific policies are provided. The evidence of whether the policies are science-based is only mentioned if the reviewed articles provide information on this – it may thus be that the policies are influenced by science but that this has not been documented in the reviewed articles. A ‘‘–” indicates that no relevant information was found in the article

6

Land sharing policies

Policy (in) coherence

Ecosystem outcomes

Livelihood outcomes

Evidence of science-based policy

Reference

Costa Rica

–

May reduce valuable old regrowth forest

Reduced rate of deforestation of protected forest but not regrowth Reduced rate of deforestation, intensification on used lands Less deforestation, but displacement

Increased production

–

(Fagan et al., 2013)

–

–

(Meyfroidt et al., 2014)

Forest increased most in low– potential areas. Threats from expanding oil palm Too much focus on MBC misses – – opportunities for conservation in shared landscapes, important for carnivores De facto land sharing in study Bird and tree specialists best conserved – area, but more smallholder than in land sparing policy driven

–

(Jadin, Meyfroidt, & Lambin, 2016)

–

(Crespin & GarciaVillalta, 2014)

–

–

(Phalan et al., 2011) and reference in text: (Gockowski & Sonwa, 2011) (Gockowski et al., 2013)

Expropriation of local people’s land and relocation Bird and tree specialists best conserved Exclusion of people from in land sparing conserved areas

Land sharing arguments ignored

(Rai & Bawa, 2013)

–

Deforestation

–

–

(Phalan et al., 2011) and reference in text: (Sundar, 2009) (Laurance et al., 2014)

–

–

–

(Koh et al., 2009)

Modeled land sharing provides better C-stock results

Modeled land sparing provides higher income

–

Land sparing best

Land sharing (smallholder) best

–

(Lusiana, van Noordwijk, & Cadisch, 2012) (Lee et al., 2014)

Most oil palm on former shifting cultivation land in the studied area Abandoned and degraded lands favor abundant species, more specialized species favored if these areas are conserved –

–

–

(Meyfroidt et al., 2014)

Uncertain livelihoods as project collapsed

–

(Law et al., 2015)

–

–

– –

– –

(Kamp, Urazaliev, Donald, & Hoelzel, 2011) (Pirard & Belna, 2012) (Castella et al., 2013a)

Policy-makers have limited knowledge of scientific work

(Vongvisouk, Broegaard et al., 2016)

Land sharing ideas ignored and (Pirard & Belna, 2012) consequences of land sparing not considered

El Salvador

Ghana

India

Indonesia

Kazakhstan

Kenya Laos

Madagascar

Malaysia

Deforestation ban, agricultural intensification Forest law: deforestation ban, PES schemes Forest law: deforestation ban, PES schemes, protected area creation Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) guides conservation and land use planning Conservation and land use intensification

– –

–

Replace extensive low-yield cocoa with intensive high-yield cocoa Biodiversity conservation

Certified shade cocoa could be a priority as demand increases (to replace extensive cocoa) Forest Rights Act

Certified cocoa would require more land to reach production targets –

Conservation and land use intensification

–

–

National conservation laws

–

Support of large scale oil palm

Support of smallholder oil palm and rubber

Jawa: Designated land use maps distinguishing ‘‘forest reserve”, ‘‘production forest” and ‘‘other” Sumatra: incentives for local government to allocate large scale oil palm Kalimantan: Land zoning and land use plans Land use zoning with conservation areas and no unmanaged land (Mega Rice Project Area) Grassland bird protection

Fodder collection in forests allowed

Decentralized resource management disrupts land sparing intentions Link of agricultural intensification to conservation not clear De facto land sharing provides better ecosystem protection than land sparing Smallholder oil palm considered land sparing (but what if they optimize production?) Little link between land policies and reality of land use Argues against the land sharing potential of oil palm

Intensification of agriculture Land allocation, segregating forest and agriculture to eliminate shifting cultivation Land allocation and land use planning; National Protected area; ‘Turning land into capital (agricultural intensification) Policy intentions, but few incentives for intensification and enforcement of conservation areas Conservation and agricultural intensification in separate areas

Oil palm companies obliged to set aside 20% of a scheme for smallholders – –

Grassland bird protection in ‘‘agricultural matrix” – –

Diverse conservation approaches, linkages to intensification unclear – Policies hardly enforced in practice

High externalities, e.g., agro-chemical pollution

Increased production and income

–

–

Contradicting land development and conservation policies

Increased deforestation and forest degradation

– Higher vulnerability as local people have few options Higher income; Tenure insecurity;

–

Extensive agriculture identified as problem, but few measures to change it

Continued deforestation

–

Requirement to keep forest buffers along streams and as corridors

Forest plantations in degraded Both policies have biodiversity benefits – lands and requirement for buffers combine sparing and sharing

–

(Sheldon & Styring, 2011)

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

Table 3 (continued) Country or region Land sparing policies

(Meyfroidt et al., 2014) – – Land zoning into protection, – special use and production forest

Expansion of rubber and cashew – (in degraded lands?) Vietnam

7

Kremen (2015), who evaluated the land sparing-land sharing framework for policy purposes, and concluded that it is too simple for policy-making in complex land use policy contexts. von Wehrden et al., 2014 point to the problem that too many policy recommendations for land sparing are based on plotlevel studies that do not relate to the wider landscape level and, in general, scale seems to be an important issue that is often not dealt with in land sparing-land sharing studies. (b) Case studies and other opinion or non-systematic review articles

While committed to land sparing, – policies may promote forest conversion Subsistence agriculture tolerated Reforestation, but forests often degraded or for productive purposes in production forest. Displacement of shifting cultivation into other areas

‘‘Soy moratorium” and Round table of sustainable soy South America

–

–

Lobbyism by agri-business sector (Oliveira & Hecht, 2016) and national pride in soy make other arguments inferior – (Pirard & Belna, 2012) – Reduced deforestation in Mato Grosso, but displacement

(Meyfroidt et al., 2014) – –

(Sharma & Vetaas, 2015) – – Landscapes with trees and high biodiversity

Deforestation – Public incentives for oil palm; few legal constraints on deforestation Peru

– Agricultural intensification

National agro-biodiversity laws do not focus on trees and agroforestry May lead to both intensification and expansion as smallholders focus on degraded lands, largeholders expand into forest Land sparing models in one place do not work everywhere

(Speelman, GarciaBarrios, Groot, & Tittonell, 2014) – – –

(Pirard & Belna, 2012) – – –

(Keys, 2008) Cropland expansion and deforestation Higher risk, market failures – –

Land use and extraction of forest Multi-functionality of products restricted after 1995 landscapes, organic palm, shade coffee promoted by municipalities and NGOs Country-wide community forestry program Nepal

Mexico

NAFTA free trade induced policies Incentives for conservation Intensive agriculture (Chili); Conservation policies

–

Decline in cultivated area driven by market integration rather than policies Market drivers and smallholder initiatives override land sparing intentions Agricultural programs likely to result in forest conversion –

–

–

–

(Rudel et al., 2009)

LAND SPARING AND LAND SHARING POLICIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Of the 75 studies identified as case studies, 35 provided information about specific land sparing and/or land sharing policies in different countries (see Tables 1, S2 and S3). Of the 49 studies that were identified in the category opinion or non-systematic review articles, only five provided information on specific policies on land sparing or land sharing (See Tables 1 and S1). The remaining studies, that ranged from very short opinion pieces to more comprehensive non-systematic reviews (or at least the system of review was not reported), covered a wide range of topics, often leading to policy recommendations of different types, but no assessment of specific policies in force. Table 3 provides an overview of the policies identified and discussed by the selected case studies, non-systematic reviews and opinion papers for a number of developing or transitional countries. The information provided by country and by policy is very diverse and ranges from brief mentioning of policies that influence land sparing/sharing to more detailed policy analysis. A total of 15 countries and their policies that can be characterized as supporting land sparing and/or land sharing are mentioned and these are distributed with an almost equal number of countries having just land sparing policies and having both land sparing and land sharing policies (Figure 1A). No countries analyzed in the studies have only policies identified as land sharing. When looking at how often countries and their policies are mentioned in the studies (some studies analyzed several countries, thus the total times that countries and their policies are mentioned equals 45), there is a fairly strong bias for analyses of Central and South American countries (Figure 1B). Studies in Brazil (10) and Argentina (4) are especially numerous, but Southeast Asia is also well represented mainly because of several studies in Indonesia (6). Africa, and Central and South Asia have the fewest studies in this collection. The lack of studies on land use change in Africa, in particular, has been mentioned before as a major shortcoming in the global understanding of land use transitions (Meyfroidt et al., 2014; van Vliet et al., 2012). Countries with both land sparing and land sharing policies have a fairly high coherence between these, e.g., in Brazil where the Forest Code enforcement is combined with promotion of agroforestry and in Malaysia where plantations are aimed at being placed in degraded lands and forested buffer zones around rivers are mandatory (Table 3). Policy contradictions more often occur between land sparing policies and other development policies. Examples of the latter are Brazil, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam, where infrastructure development, land development policies, and market support are among the drivers that contradict the land sparing intentions of agricultural intensification and forest conservation efforts. Moreover, a number of other policy incoherencies are found in different countries relating to, e.g., conservation policies that have too limited scope and only seek to spare land with forests although other ecosystems are argued to be of high biodiversity value.

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

8

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Figure 1. Distribution of countries analyzed in the studies identified in the present review. Panel A) shows the fifteen countries for which policies were mentioned and the existence of land sparing and land sharing polices. Panel B) shows the percentage of the 45 times that different countries with land sparing or land sharing policies were mentioned in the studies.

When studies mention environmental outcomes of the policies it is often not easy to determine to what extent policies directly or indirectly influenced the landscape or ecosystem variables analyzed. Environmental outcomes are mostly assessed in terms of the degree of change in deforestation, for example in Argentina, Costa Rica and to some extent Brazil, despite the contradicting impact of development policies mentioned above. Here, land sparing is seen to mainly reduce deforestation, whereas land sparing policies in Indonesia, Laos, Mexico, and Peru tend to lead to more deforestation because of policy incoherencies. Other studies assess the impact on ecosystem services, mostly different biodiversity variables, but it is often not clear to what extent these outcomes are linked to policies and their enforcement in the study areas. Livelihood outcomes are assessed by relatively few of the selected studies, but those that do support the conclusions in van Vliet et al., 2012 that land sparing approaches tend to create higher income for local people, but also higher risk and vulnerability. Finally, the degree to which the studies mentioned or analyzed whether land sparing or land sharing policies were based on scientific evidence was very limited. Only five studies had some assessment of policy uptake or rather the lack thereof as they mainly referred to how government policies ignored the science of land sharing, whether deliberately or not. 4. DRIVERS OF LAND SPARING AND LAND SHARING POLICIES The hypothesis for this review that developing countries would mainly pursue land sparing land use and conservation policies was partly verified as all countries included in the studies had indeed explicit land sparing policies. It was more surprising that about half of the countries also had some type of land sharing policy that would generally complement the land sparing policies. In addition, our hypothesis was that the evidence for use of scientific results as a basis for developing land use policies would be limited. Indeed, we show in

Table 3 that the reasons why countries select different types of policy approaches range from committed compliance with international conventions, lobbyism by national and international agri-businesses and NGOs, to navigating local realities of development needs and investment. International conventions, e.g., the AICHI Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the commitments to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) under the Convention to Combat Climate Change, directly affect land policy-making in many countries in their efforts to live up to agreed obligations. Forest conservation in Brazil, for example, refers to the AICHI Target 11 (Dotta, Phalan, Silva, Green, & Balmford, 2016). REDD+ is also clearly devised as a land sparing idea to incentivize protection of forests from further deforestation and regeneration of degraded forests and thus appears as a driver for land sparing policies in several countries, for example Argentina, Brazil, DRC Congo, and Laos (Eloy, Meral, Ludewigs, Pinheiro, & Singer, 2012; Macchi, Grau, & Phalan, 2016; Phelps et al., 2013; Vongvisouk, Broegaard et al., 2016). Although there have been multiple calls for making REDD+ a more flexible approach that also considers the carbon benefits of maintaining shared landscapes (McNicoll et al., 2015; Mertz et al., 2012; van Noordwijk et al., 2012), this seems not to be very prevalent in convention texts and current readiness plans for REDD+, except perhaps in Argentina where agricultural intensification is recognized as a cause of deforestation in REDD+ policy documents (Pirard & Belna, 2012). General pressure from consumers at the global level also pushes land policy-making in developing countries to seek more sustainable land use practices and engage in payments for ecosystem services. These include organic agriculture and agroforestry, which both have predominantly land sharing aims as they favor diverse landscapes and agro-diversity. However, both organic farming and agroforestry could also be perceived as having land sparing aims if the goal is to intensify subsistence agriculture and avoid further expansion (Minang, Duguma, Bernard, Mertz, & van Noordwijk,

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

LAND SPARING AND LAND SHARING POLICIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

2014). Other certification schemes, for example the Round Tables on Sustainable Palm Oil and on Sustainable Soy, specify criteria for which only certain types of land can be converted to plantations or agriculture in order to prevent further deforestation of natural forests. Certification and the international round tables have been supported by stakeholders ranging from agri-businesses, international NGOs and retailers in order to curb the destructive nature of these sectors in terms of deforestation, but they have also been controversial as there could be substantial displacement of deforestation between certified and non-certified production areas (Oliveira & Hecht, 2016). It has moreover been argued that agribusiness in southern South America has such powerful influence over policy-making – and that national pride in soy production countries has become so great – that arguments against soy, whether certified or not, are simply considered inferior and discarded (Oliveira & Hecht, 2016). Large international conservation NGOs could be argued to play somewhat contradictory roles for national policy-making as they on one hand focus on securing and expanding strongly protected areas and thus support land sparing ideas, but on the other hand they also support less intensive agriculture for a variety of certification schemes that tend to favor land sharing (Baudron & Giller, 2014). Similarly, the role of international development assistance can be controversial when donor agencies align with national policies that may have contradictory aims for land development and nature conservation as, for example, observed in Laos (Broegaard, Vongvisouk, & Mertz, 2017). Despite the importance of international decisions and organization, national-level policies are eventually shaped and implemented at the national level and largely influenced by national-level realities. In Brazil, for example, where national policy-making has strongly reacted to international and national pressure to stop deforestation as outlined above, there is evidence that the strict forest code is not enforced equally throughout the country (Cohn et al., 2014; Oliveira & Hecht, 2016). For example, enforcement of the requirement that a certain percentage of private land needs to be kept under natural forest (often presented as land sharing, but could be viewed as land sparing) is especially low in agricultural frontiers (Eloy et al., 2012). In other parts of the country, Brazil appears to manage the implementation of land sparing and land sharing policies relatively well as agroforestry is implemented as a combination of land sharing and sparing by promoting intensified production, reduced expansion and conservation values on farm land simultaneously (Cialdella et al., 2015; Schroth et al., 2011). Agroforestry is also seen as way to combine the two concepts in Africa as it has the potential to both spare land and provide habitats for a higher diversity of species than other forms of agriculture (Minang et al., 2014). Indeed, there appears to be an increasing attention in many African countries to develop policies that view landscapes as integrated entities and value their multifunctionality (Milder, Hart, Dobie, Minai, & Zaleski, 2014). This was not, however, the main trend observed in the African countries represented in this review. In Ghana, for example, important land policies are centered on the national target for cocoa production achieved through replacement of extensive low-yield cocoa with intensive high yield cocoa as part of a development paradigm that can both reduce poverty and spare land from further expansion of extensive cultivation (Gockowski, Afari-Sefa, Sarpong, Osei-Asare, & Agyeman, 2013; Gockowski & Sonwa, 2011). Although the country is attentive to the increasing demand for certified shade-grown cocoa, this would require more land to reach the production

9

targets and therefore seems not to be a priority. Similarly, in DRC Congo, Kenya, and Madagascar, the policies presented all took their point of departure in land sparing being the ideal approach although the reality of smallholder agriculture in all countries remains akin to land sharing and the limited policy implementation may not change this in the near future (Phelps et al., 2013; Pirard & Belna, 2012). In Asia, the main driver of land sparing policies is also land development, mobilizing what is thought as being a large ‘‘land bank” that needs to be capitalized upon. In Laos, for example, maize cultivation is rapidly expanding and grown under contract-farming with strong support from the government as part of poverty alleviation and land development policies as well as efforts to reduce shifting cultivation (Castella et al., 2013b; Vongvisouk, Broegaard et al., 2016; Vongvisouk, Mertz, Thongmanivong, Heinimann, & Phanvilay, 2014). At the same time the government is attempting to increase nationwide forest cover and prepares for REDD+ (DoF, 2012; Dwyer & Ingalls, 2015; Vongvisouk, Castella et al., 2016) and local authorities are navigating these contradicting policies by implementing land use planning and conservation in principle, but in practice turning a blind eye to encroachment of village lands set aside for forests and protected areas (Broegaard et al., 2017). Semi-permanent maize cultivation has thus not only replaced upland rice cultivation and the shared landscapes with different ages of secondary forests and fields, but also primary and secondary forests inside and outside a large tiger conservation area. Consequently, although the government policies aim to spare land for forest conservation by intensifying agriculture, the result is rapid agricultural expansion and neither spared forest nor shared landscapes (Vongvisouk, Broegaard et al., 2016). Similarly, oil palm expansion in Malaysia and Indonesia has been driven partly by the idea that the use of degraded forests and shifting cultivation areas for intensive plantation agriculture will spare the remaining forests, for example by the Indonesian moratorium on using primary forests and peatlands for logging or plantations. However, the moratorium has been shown to be relatively ineffective for curbing carbon emissions (Busch et al., 2015) and most likely also for stopping biodiversity loss. The limitations of this national policy is partly linked to the decentralization of resource management to district and provincial levels that have left many land use decisions to local stakeholders (Laurance, Sayer, & Cassman, 2014) and in general there are often limited connections between land policies and plans and the reality of local land use and occupation (Meyfroidt et al., 2014). Moreover, in Malaysia and Indonesia, smallholder oil palm and maintenance of forest buffers along streams are considered land sharing approaches (Koh, Levang, & Ghazoul, 2009; Lee, GarciaUlloa, Ghazoul, Obidzinski, & Koh, 2014) as is also the case in other types of plantations (Sheldon & Styring, 2011). There may indeed be some evidence for this in smallholder systems, where other crops – even upland rice - are integrated with the oil palm cultivation (Mertz, 2015; Mertz, Egay, Bruun, & Colding, 2013), but it is doubtful how efficient the riparian buffers and corridors are in maintaining ecosystem services as they are often not enforced (Giam et al., 2015). Finally, China and Vietnam have had strong top-down policy efforts to spare land from agriculture based on ideas of water protection, low productivity of agriculture in upland areas, and also efforts to reduce remote settlements that are difficult to reach in terms of public services and political control. Although China did not emerge in the present review that has been limited to the land sparing-land sharing debate, it is worth mentioning their national policies such as the ‘‘Grain

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

10

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

for Green” programe (Xu et al., 2006) and the ‘‘Sloping Land Conversion Programme” (He & Sikor, 2015; Weyerhaeuser, Wilkes, & Kahrl, 2005), which have led to reforestation of many upland areas but at high displacement costs (Meyfroidt, Rudel, & Lambin, 2010) and with forests of limited biodiversity value (Xu, 2011). In Vietnam, land allocation policies similar to Laos have had the same effect as in China, but again with displacement costs and forests with lower carbon stock and biodiversity value (Ankersen et al., 2015; Meyfroidt & Lambin, 2008, 2009). As mentioned before and as can be derived from the drivers of policy-making assessed above, scientific debates or results were not identified as a main input to policy-making. In Madagascar and India, two studies claim that policy-makers ignore land sharing (Pirard & Belna, 2012; Rai & Bawa, 2013), in Brazil, lack of knowledge of the potential benefits of land sharing policies are mentioned as a constraint for more diverse land policies (Cialdella et al., 2015), and in Laos a general lack of awareness of scientific work by policy-makers is observed (Vongvisouk, Broegaard et al., 2016). This of course does not mean that science is not used in land policy-making in developing countries since such policy processes may not have been documented scientifically. Moreover, they tend to take place in policy arenas and through popular publications that will not appear in searches of the scientific literature. The few comments in the studies assessed here do, however, question whether the science-uptake is at an adequate level and this would need to be documented more systematically. 5. CONCLUSIONS It is clear that scientific debates have evolved beyond simply discussing whether land sharing or sparing is beneficial. Not only because the scientific debate is converging on agreement that combinations of both approaches can be relevant in the right contexts, but also because landscapes with strong forest elements – whether dominated by primary or old-growth forests or complex mosaics of secondary forests and fields – are disappearing. We have provided an overview of a relatively limited number of national policies on land sparing and land sharing in developing countries as the scientific literature that specifically addresses this topic has only engaged with actual policies to a limited extent. Based on the literature at hand, it is clear that most countries follow land sparing models, but sometimes in combination with land sharing ideas. The latter, however, often receives much less attention and funding (Cialdella et al., 2015) and in a number of countries land sharing ideas appear to be largely ignored (Pirard & Belna, 2012; Rai & Bawa, 2013; Vongvisouk, Broegaard et al., 2016). There is also no clear evidence for whether land sparing or land sharing provides the best outcomes in terms of ecosystem services provision, conservation and livelihoods, probably because insufficient attention has been given from policylevel to what works in different contexts (Butsic &

Kuemmerle, 2015; Law & Wilson, 2015). One problem is that displacement is a real problem and even if land sparing is effective in one place, conversion of areas suitable for conservation may occur in other locations with less protection (Grau et al., 2013; Meyfroidt et al., 2010; Weinzettel, Hertwich, Peters, Steen-Olsen, & Galli, 2013). Indeed, Rudel et al., 2009 argue that specific policies for cropland abandonment may be needed to decrease cropland areas (or at least stop expansion of it) as yield increases alone will not make this happen. Moreover, forest dependence may not be a strong driver of forest conservation as returns from forest products are low and not a strong alternative to agriculture as a pathway out of poverty (Wunder, Bo¨rner, Shively, & Wyman, 2014). The effects of land sparing and land sharing policies can therefore not be taken for granted and will have to address the broader complexities of land as a coupled human-environment system with multiple feed-backs and spill-over effects. Finally, we acknowledge that the present review only looked at the recent literature that integrates the concepts of land sparing and land sharing in the analyses. Although this terminology is new, it is more the way the conservation-agriculture linkages are conceptualized than the actual substance of the debate that is new. Research into how best to protect natural forests and other ecosystems has been ongoing for decades, including the role of agricultural expansion as one of the main stressors of the natural environment and in efforts to integrate conservation and development at the project level (Bauch, Sills, & Pattanayak, 2014) which has been difficult to achieve in developing countries. Moreover, many land policies that may have land sparing or land sharing aims have been discussed in the literature without mentioning the words ‘‘sparing” or ‘‘sharing”. It was, however, beyond the capacity of the present analysis to integrate this much wider literature as it would have required detailed country by country literature searches on land use policies. Nonetheless, we have provided a first step in providing an overview of actual land sparing and land sharing policies in developing countries. A highly interesting next step for further research would be to first obtain an overview of the full picture of local land policies that are so crucial for global management of ecosystems and, secondly, to better understand the processes of uptake of scientific debates in land policy-making – or perhaps rather the lack thereof. While the gap between research and policy has been much debated in various scientific and policy arenas, there is surprisingly little research on the processes of uptake of science in land policy-making, especially when it comes to rapidly developing debates like land sparing-land sharing, where the science has moved fast away from two polarized views to a more nuanced understanding. Perhaps the 10– 12 years that this debate has been on the agenda is too short for making its way into policy-making or perhaps such policy uptake is captured in a different strand of literature. In any case, it would also be important for scholars focusing on land and development issues to document this better.

REFERENCES Angelsen, A., & Kaimowitz, D. (2001). Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation. In A. Angelsen, & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.). Oxon, Uk: CABI Publishing. Ankersen, J., Mertz, O., Fensholt, R., Castella, J. C., Lestrelin, G., Nguyen, T. D., & Rasmussen, K. (2015). Vietnam’s forest transition in retrospect: Demonstrating weaknesses in business-as-usual scenarios for REDD+. Environmental Management, 55, 1080–1092.

Ausubel, J. H., Wernick, I. K., & Waggoner, P. E. (2013). Peak farmland and the prospect for land sparing. Population and Development Review, 38, 221–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00561.x. Balmford, A., Green, R., & Phalan, B. (2015). Land for food & land for nature?. Daedalus, 144(4), 57–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00354.

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

LAND SPARING AND LAND SHARING POLICIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Balmford, A., Green, R. E., & Scharlemann, J. P. W. (2005). Sparing land for nature: Exploring the potential impact of changes in agricultural yield on the area needed for crop production. Global Change Biology, 11 (10), 1594–1605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01035.x. Barral, M. P., Rey Benayas, J. M., Meli, P., & Maceira, N. O. (2015). Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 202, 223–231. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009. Barrett, C. B., Travis, A. J., & Dasgupta, P. (2011). On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13907–13912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1011521108. Barretto, A. G. O. P., Berndes, G., Sparovek, G., & Wirsenius, S. (2013). Agricultural intensification in Brazil and its effects on land-use patterns: An analysis of the 1975–2006 period. Global Change Biology, 19(6), 1804–1815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12174. Bauch, S. C., Sills, E. O., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2014). Have we managed to integrate conservation and development? ICDP impacts in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 64(Supplement 1), S135–S148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.009. Baudron, F., & Giller, K. E. (2014). Agriculture and nature: Trouble and strife?. Biological Conservation, 170, 232–245. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.009. Berry, N. J., Phillips, O. L., Lewis, S. L., Hill, J. K., Edwards, D. P., Tawatao, N. B., & Hamer, K. C. (2010). The high value of logged tropical forests: Lessons from northern Borneo. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(4), 985–997. Broegaard, R. B., Vongvisouk, T., & Mertz, O. (2017). Contradictory land use plans and policies in Laos: Tenure security and its threats of exclusion. World Development, 89, 170–183. Burney, J. A., Davis, S. J., & Lobell, D. B. (2010). Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(26), 12052–12057. Busch, J., Ferretti-Gallon, K., Engelmann, J., Wright, M., Austin, K. G., Stolle, F., & Baccini, A. (2015). Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia’s moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(5), 1328–1333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1412514112. Butsic, V., & Kuemmerle, T. (2015). Using optimization methods to align food production and biodiversity conservation beyond land sharing and land sparing. Ecological Applications, 25(3), 589–595. http://dx. doi.org/10.1890/14-1927.1. Castella, J.-C., Lestrelin, G., Hett, C., Bourgoin, J., Fitriana, Y. R., Heinimann, A., & Pfund, J.-L. (2013a). Effects of landscape segregation on livelihood vulnerability: Moving from extensive shifting cultivation to rotational agriculture and natural forests in Northern Laos. Human Ecology, 41(1), 63–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745012-9538-8. Castella, J. C., Lestrelin, G., Hett, C., Bourgoin, J., Fitriana, Y. R., Heinimann, A., & Pfund, J. L. (2013b). Effects of landscape segregation on livelihood vulnerability: Moving from extensive shifting cultivation to rotational agriculture and natural forests in Northern Laos. Human Ecology, 41(1), 63–76. Ceddia, M. G., Bardsley, N. O., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., & Sedlacek, S. (2014). Governance, agricultural intensification, and land sparing in tropical South America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(20), 7242–7247. http://dx. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317967111. Cialdella, N., Carvalho, S., Vaz, V., Barbosa, T., Thaˆles, M., Moura˜o, M., & Tourrand, J. F. (2015). Do political changes aimed at reducing amazonian deforestation contribute to ecological intensification?. Cahiers Agricultures, 24(4), 246–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1684/ agr.2015.0761. Cohn, A. S., Mosnier, A., Havlı´k, P., Valin, H., Herrero, M., Schmid, E., & Obersteiner, M. (2014). Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20), 7236–7241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307163111. Crespin, S. J., & Garcia-Villalta, J. E. (2014). Integration of land-sharing and land-sparing conservation strategies through regional networking: The mesoamerican biological corridor as a lifeline for carnivores in El Salvador. Ambio, 43(6), 820–824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280013-0470-y.

11

DeFries, R., & Rosenzweig, C. (2010). Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(46), 19627–19632. DoF (2012). Forest Cover Assessment in 2010. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Dotta, G., Phalan, B., Silva, T. W., Green, R., & Balmford, A. (2016). Assessing strategies to reconcile agriculture and bird conservation in the temperate grasslands of South America. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 30(3), 618–627. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12635. Dwyer, M. B., & Ingalls, M. (2015). REDD+ at the crossroads: Choices and tradseoffs for 2015–2020 in Laos. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Eloy, L., Meral, P., Ludewigs, T., Pinheiro, G. T., & Singer, B. (2012). Payments for ecosystem services in Amazonia. The challenge of land use heterogeneity in agricultural frontiers near Cruzeiro do Sul (Acre, Brazil). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(6), 685–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.621021. Fagan, M. E., DeFries, R. S., Sesnie, S. E., Arroyo, J. P., Walker, W., Soto, C., & Sanchun, A. (2013). Land cover dynamics following a deforestation ban in northern Costa Rica. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034017. Ferraro, P. J., Hanauer, M. M., & Sims, K. R. E. (2011). Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13913–13918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011529108. Fischer, J., Abson, D. J., Butsic, V., Chappell, M. J., Ekroos, J., Hanspach, J., & von Wehrden, H. (2014). Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 149–157. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12084. Fischer, J., Brosi, B., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Goldman, R., Goldstein, J., & Tallis, H. (2008). Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(7), 382–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ 070019. Fox, J., Fujita, Y., Ngidang, D., Peluso, N. L., Potter, L., Sakuntaladewi, N., & Thomas, D. (2009). Policies, political-economy, and swidden in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37(3), 305–322. Giam, X., Hadiaty, R. K., Tan, H. H., Parenti, L. R., Wowor, D., Sauri, S., & Wilcove, D. S. (2015). Mitigating the impact of oil-palm monoculture on freshwater fishes in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology, 29(5), 1357–1367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12483. Gibson, L., Lee, T. M., Koh, L. P., Brook, B. W., Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., & Sodhi, N. S. (2011). Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature, 478(7369), 378–381. Gockowski, J., Afari-Sefa, V., Sarpong, D. B., Osei-Asare, Y. B., & Agyeman, N. F. (2013). Improving the productivity and income of Ghanaian cocoa farmers while maintaining environmental services: What role for certification?. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 11(4), 331–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14735903.2013.772714. Gockowski, J., & Sonwa, D. (2011). Cocoa Intensification Scenarios and Their Predicted Impact on CO2 Emissions, Biodiversity Conservation, and Rural Livelihoods in the Guinea Rain Forest of West Africa. Environmental Management, 48(2), 307–321. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00267-010-9602-3. Grau, H. R., Gasparri, N. I., & Aide, T. M. (2008). Balancing food production and nature conservation in the Neotropical dry forests of northern Argentina. Global Change Biology, 14(5), 985–997. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01554.x. Grau, H. R., Kuemmerle, T., & Macchi, L. (2013). Beyond ‘land sparing versus land sharing’: Environmental heterogeneity, globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5 (5), 477–483. Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Balmford, A. (2005). Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science, 307(5709), 550–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049. Hansen, T. S., & Mertz, O. (2006). Extinction or adaptation? Three decades of change in shifting cultivation in Sarawak, Malaysia. Land Degradation and Development, 17(2), 135–148. He, J., & Sikor, T. (2015). Notions of justice in payments for ecosystem services: Insights from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province. Land Use Policy, 43, 207–216. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.011.

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

12

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Hertel, T. W., Ramankutty, N., & Baldos, U. L. C. (2014). Global market integration increases likelihood that a future African Green Revolution could increase crop land use and CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(38), 13799–13804. http://dx.doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1403543111. Immerzeel, D. J., Verweij, P. A., van der Hilst, F., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2014). Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: A state-of-the-art review. GCB Bioenergy, 6(3), 183–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ gcbb.12067. Jadin, I., Meyfroidt, P., & Lambin, E. F. (2016). International trade, and land use intensification and spatial reorganization explain Costa Rica’s forest transition. Environmental Research Letters, 11(3). http://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035005. Kamp, J., Urazaliev, R., Donald, P. F., & Hoelzel, N. (2011). Post-Soviet agricultural change predicts future declines after recent recovery in Eurasian steppe bird populations. Biological Conservation, 144(11), 2607–2614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.010. Keys, E. (2008). Market integration and market realities on the Mexican frontier: The case of Calakmul, campeche, Mexico. In A. Millington, & W. Jepson (Eds.), Land-Change Science in the Tropics: Changing Agricultural Landscapes (pp. 181–199). New York: Springer. Koh, L. P., Levang, P., & Ghazoul, J. (2009). Designer landscapes for sustainable biofuels. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(8), 431–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.012. Kremen, C. (2015). Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1355(1), 52–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12845. Kremen, C., & Miles, A. (2012). Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ es-05035-170440. Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9), 3465–3472. Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J., & Cassman, K. G. (2014). Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(2), 107–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.001. Law, E. A., Meijaard, E., Bryan, B. A., Mallawaarachchi, T., Koh, L. P., & Wilson, K. A. (2015). Better land-use allocation outperforms land sparing and land sharing approaches to conservation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation, 186, 276–286. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.004. Law, E. A., & Wilson, K. A. (2015). Providing context for the landsharing and land-sparing debate. Conservation Letters, 8(6), 404–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12168. Lee, J. S. H., Garcia-Ulloa, J., Ghazoul, J., Obidzinski, K., & Koh, L. P. (2014). Modelling environmental and socio-economic trade-offs associated with land-sparing and land-sharing approaches to oil palm expansion. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(5), 1366–1377. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/1365-2664.12286. Lusiana, B., van Noordwijk, M., & Cadisch, G. (2012). Land sparing or sharing? Exploring livestock fodder options in combination with land use zoning and consequences for livelihoods and net carbon stocks using the FALLOW model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 159, 145–160. Macchi, L., Grau, H. R., & Phalan, B. (2016). Agricultural production and bird conservation in complex landscapes of the dry Chaco. Journal of Land Use Science, 11(2), 188–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 1747423X.2015.1057244. Macchi, L., Ricardo Grau, H., Zelaya, P. V., & Marinaro, S. (2013). Trade-offs between land use intensity and avian biodiversity in the dry Chaco of Argentina: A tale of two gradients. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 174, 11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.011. Macedo, M. N., DeFries, R. S., Morton, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Galford, G. L., & Shimabukuro, Y. E. (2012). Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4), 1341–1346. Mastrangelo, M. E., Weyland, F., Villarino, S. H., Barral, M. P., Nahuelhual, L., & Laterra, P. (2014). Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a unifying framework based on ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 29(2), 345–358. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10980-013-9959-9. Mattison, E. H. A., & Norris, K. (2005). Bridging the gaps between agricultural policy, land-use and biodiversity. Trends in Ecology &

Evolution, 20(11), 610–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005. 06.011. McNicoll, I. M., Berry, N. J., Bruun, T. B., Hergoualc’h, K., Mertz, O., de Neergaard, A., & Ryan, C. M. (2015). Development of allometric models for above and belowground biomass in swidden cultivation fallows of Northern Laos. Forest Ecology and Management, 304, 104–116. Mertz, O. (2015). Oil Palm as a productive fallow? Swidden change and new opportunities in smallholder land management. In M. Cairns (Ed.), Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change. Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest Conservation (pp. 731–741). Oxon, Uk: Earthscan from Routledge. Mertz, O., & Bruun, T. B. (2017). Shifting cultivation policies in Southeast Asia. A need to work with, rather than against, smallholder farmers. In M. Cairns (Ed.), Shifting Cultivation Policies: Balancing Environmental and Social Sustainability (pp. 81–96). CABI. Mertz, O., Egay, K., Bruun, T. B., & Colding, T. S. (2013). The last swiddens of Sarawak. Human Ecology, 41(1), 109–118. Mertz, O., Mu¨ller, D., Sikor, T., Hett, C., Heinimann, A., Castella, J. C., & Sun, Z. (2012). The forgotten D: Challenges of addressing forest degradation in complex mosaic landscapes under REDD+. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 112(1), 63–76. Meyfroidt, P., Carlson, K. M., Fagan, M. E., Gutie´rrez-Ve´lez, V. H., Macedo, M. N., Curran, L. M., & Robiglio, V. (2014). Multiple pathways of commodity crop expansion in tropical forest landscapes. Environmental Research Letters, 9(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/17489326/9/7/074012. Meyfroidt, P., & Lambin, E. F. (2008). Forest transition in Vietnam and its environmental impacts. Global Change Biology, 14(6), 1319–1336. Meyfroidt, P., & Lambin, E. F. (2009). Forest transition in Vietnam and displacement of deforestation abroad. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(38), 16139–16144. Meyfroidt, P., Rudel, T. K., & Lambin, E. F. (2010). Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(49), 20917–20922. Milder, J. C., Hart, A. K., Dobie, P., Minai, J., & Zaleski, C. (2014). Integrated landscape initiatives for african agriculture, development, and conservation: A region-wide assessment. World Development, 54, 68–80, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.07.006. Minang, P. A., Duguma, L. A., Bernard, F., Mertz, O., & van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Prospects for agroforestry in REDD+ landscapes in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6(1), 78–82. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.015. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007. Montoya-Molina, S., Giraldo-Echeverri, C., Montoya-Lerma, J., Chara, J., Escobar, F., & Calle, Z. (2016). Land sharing vs. land sparing in the dry Caribbean lowlands: A dung beetles’ perspective. Applied Soil Ecology, 98, 204–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.10.017. Oliveira, G., & Hecht, S. (2016). Sacred groves, sacrifice zones and soy production: Globalization, intensification and neo-nature in South America. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(2), 251–285. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/03066150.2016.1146705. Padoch, C., & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. (2010). Saving Slash-and-Burn to Save Biodiversity. Biotropica, 42(5), 550–552. Paul, C., & Knoke, T. (2015). Between land sharing and land sparing what role remains for forest management and conservation?. International Forestry Review, 17(2), 210–230. Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2008). Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: A new conservation paradigm. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134, 173–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/ annals.1439.011. Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2010). The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(13), 5786–5791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0905455107. Phalan, B., Green, R., & Balmford, A. (2014). Closing yield gaps: Perils and possibilities for biodiversity conservation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 369(1639). http://dx. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0285.

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002

LAND SPARING AND LAND SHARING POLICIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., & Green, R. E. (2011). Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science, 333(6047), 1289–1291. Phelps, J., Carrasco, L. R., Webb, E. L., Koh, L. P., & Pascual, U. (2013). Agricultural intensification escalates future conservation costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(19), 7601–7606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1220070110. Pirard, R., & Belna, K. (2012). Agriculture and deforestation: Is REDD+ rooted in evidence?. Forest Policy and Economics, 21, 62–70. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.01.012. Rai, N. D., & Bawa, K. S. (2013). Inserting politics and history in conservation. Conservation Biology, 27(2), 425–428. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/cobi.12026. Ramankutty, N., & Rhemtulla, J. (2012). Can intensive farming save nature?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(9), 455-455. Ramı´rez, P. A., & Simonetti, J. A. (2011). Conservation opportunities in commercial plantations: The case of mammals. Journal for Nature Conservation, 19(6), 351–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jnc.2011.06.003. Rerkasem, K., Lawrence, D., Padoch, C., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Ziegler, A., & Bruun, T. B. (2009). Consequences of swidden transitions for crop and fallow biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37(3), 347–360. Rudel, T. K., Schneider, L., Uriarte, M., Turner, B. L., DeFries, R., Lawrence, D., & Grau, H. R. (2009). Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(49), 20675–20680. Scariot, A. (2013). Land sparing or land sharing: The missing link. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4), 177–178. http://dx.doi. org/10.1890/13.wb.008. Schroth, G., Faria, D., Araujo, M., Bede, L., Van Bael, S. A., Cassano, C. R., & Delabie, J. H. C. (2011). Conservation in tropical landscape mosaics: The case of the cacao landscape of southern Bahia. Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(8), 1635–1654. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10531-011-0052-x. Shackelford, G. E., Steward, P. R., German, R. N., Sait, S. M., & Benton, T. G. (2015). Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes: Hotspots of conflict between agriculture and nature. Diversity and Distributions, 21(3), 357–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ ddi.12291. Sharma, L. N., & Vetaas, O. R. (2015). Does agroforestry conserve trees? A comparison of tree species diversity between farmland and forest in mid-hills of central Himalaya. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(8), 2047–2061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0927-3. Sheldon, F., & Styring, A. (2011). Bird diversity differs between industrial tree plantations on Borneo: Implications for conservation planning. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 59(2), 295–309. Speelman, E. N., Garcia-Barrios, L. E., Groot, J. C. J., & Tittonell, P. (2014). Gaming for smallholder participation in the design of more sustainable agricultural landscapes. Agricultural Systems, 126, 62–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.09.002. Sundar, K. S. G. (2009). Are rice paddies suboptimal breeding habitat for sarus cranes in Uttar Pradesh, India?. The Condor, 111(4), 611–623, doi:10.1525/cond.2009.080032. Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T. C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., & Whitbread, A. (2012). Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 151(1), 53–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068.

13

van Noordwijk, M., Leimona, B., Jindal, R., Villamor, G. B., Vardhan, M., Namirembe, S., & Tomich, T. P. (2012). Payments for environmental services: Evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 389–420. van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., Langanke, T., Pascual, U., Schmook, B., & Ziegler, A. (2012). Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: A global assessment. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 418–429. von Wehrden, H., Abson, D. J., Beckmann, M., Cord, A. F., Klotz, S., & Seppelt, R. (2014). Realigning the land-sharing/land-sparing debate to match conservation needs: Considering diversity scales and land-use history. Landscape Ecology, 29(6), 941–948. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10980-014-0038-7. Vongvisouk, T., Broegaard, R. B., Mertz, O., & Thongmanivong, S. (2016). Rush for cash crops and forest protection: Neither land sparing nor land sharing. Land Use Policy, 55, 182–192. Vongvisouk, T., Castella, J. C., Lestrelin, G., Mertz, O., Broegaard, R. B., & Thongmanivong, S. (2016). REDD+ on hold: Lessons from an emerging institutional setup in Laos. Asia Pacific Viewpoint. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/apv.12134. Vongvisouk, T., Mertz, O., Thongmanivong, S., Heinimann, A., & Phanvilay, K. (2014). Shifting cultivation stability and change: Contrasting pathways of land use and livelihood change in Laos. Applied Geography, 46, 1–10. Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E. G., Peters, G. P., Steen-Olsen, K., & Galli, A. (2013). Affluence drives the global displacement of land use. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 433–438. Weyerhaeuser, H., Wilkes, A., & Kahrl, F. (2005). Local impacts and responses to regional forest conservation and rehabilitation programs in China’s northwest Yunnan province. Agricultural Systems, 85(3), 234–253. Wunder, S., Bo¨rner, J., Shively, G., & Wyman, M. (2014). Safety nets, gap filling and forests: A global-comparative perspective. World Development, 64(Supplement 1), S29–S42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.005. Xu, J. (2011). China’s new forests aren’t as green as they seem. Nature, 477, 371. Xu, J. C., Lebel, L., & Sturgeon, J. (2009). Functional links between biodiversity, livelihoods and culture in a Hani swidden landscape in Southwest China. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 20. Xu, Z., Xu, J., Deng, X., Huang, J., Uchida, E., & Rozelle, S. (2006). Grain for green versus grain: Conflict between food security and conservation set-aside in China. World Development, 34(1), 130–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.08.002.

APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.worlddev.2017.05.002.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Please cite this article in press as: Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. Land Sparing and Land Sharing Policies in Developing Countries – Drivers and Linkages to Scientific Debates, World Development (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002