Rising yields, declining deforestation?
There is now a broad consensus, among policymakers but not among the public, on the need to increase crop yields, particularly in developing countries, to improve food security and reduce rural poverty. There is another, even more controversial, argument in favor of increasing agricultural productivity: it helps slow the expansion of cultivated areas and curb deforestation, thereby limiting biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. This was one of the key messages that emerged from the roundtable on the challenges of sustainable palm oil, organized by FARM and the Interprofessional Association of Oil Palms of Côte d'Ivoire (AIPH), at the last Paris International Agricultural Show.
This argument must be qualified, however. Indeed, increasing yields has contradictory effects on cultivated land. On the one hand, it reduces the need for land to provide the same volume of agricultural production. On the other, it leads to a drop in agricultural prices, which stimulates food demand and, in turn, promotes an increase in production. The interaction between these two phenomena determines the net change in cultivated land, taking into account, of course, the availability of existing land.
Another element that adds to the complexity of the subject is the different levels of integration of countries in international trade in agricultural products. An American researcher[1] has recently shown that when agricultural productivity increases in a country that exports a significant part of its production, this can result in an increase in cultivated areas, as seen in Brazil and Indonesia; however, this increase is generally offset by a decline in cultivated areas in the rest of the world, due to the decrease in agricultural prices resulting from the growth in production in the exporting country.
In total, according to this researcher, if global agricultural productivity had not increased between 1991 and 2010, it would have been necessary to cultivate 173 million more hectares, the equivalent of approximately 10 % of tropical forests.[2]Other studies give more mixed results, depending on the regions observed and the estimation method used.[3]. Thus, increasing yields appears necessary, but not sufficient, to reduce deforestation. A whole range of complementary measures is required.[4] : more effective forest protection policies, capable of actually applying the preservation standards set by the State[5] ; active agricultural research, both in terms of improving crop varieties and developing diversified agricultural production and forest management systems; technical support for farmers, ensuring the dissemination and adoption of good practices; the payment of aid to farmers who agree not to deforest their plots, in the form of payments for environmental services[6] or financial incentives under the REDD+ mechanism[7] ; an encouragement to diversify producers' income[8] ; finally, the establishment of appropriate certifications in countries importing cocoa, rubber or palm oil[9]For greater coherence and efficiency, these measures would benefit from being grouped together, as is the case in France, in a global strategy to combat imported deforestation, involving both public authorities and businesses.[10]Importantly, the design and implementation of these mechanisms require the participation of local communities, whose land rights must be recognized by the State in order to avoid the misuse of environmental policies.[11]Better integration of agriculture and forestry is all the more essential as many of the poorest farmers collect wood for their domestic needs and to supplement their income.
The challenge, ultimately, is to simultaneously address the three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental – in order to develop an ecologically intensive, profitable agriculture that is feasible for small producers and capable of meeting the challenges facing the planet. This path is fraught with pitfalls because it is marked by contradictions: it requires arbitrating between sometimes conflicting objectives, whether it be reducing the use of chemical inputs, improving the carbon footprint, conserving biodiversity, strengthening food security or increasing agricultural income.[12]It is therefore clearly a matter of political choices.
[1] Villoria, NB (2019), Technology Spillovers and Land Use Change: Empirical Evidence from Global Agriculture, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, forthcoming.
[2] In this study, NB Villoria analyzes the impact of total factor productivity (TFP) in agriculture, defined as the unit of agricultural output obtained per unit of production factor (land, capital, labor). TFP should not be confused with yields, not only because its definition is different but also because it includes livestock production. According to our estimates, based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, global agricultural TFP, between 1961-65 and 2011-2015, increased 2.3 times less quickly than the average value of agricultural production per hectare, expressed in constant dollars.
[3] According to Bakehe, NP (2018), Agricultural Productivity and Deforestation in the Congo Basin, Rural Economy 366, October-December 2018, the deforestation rate observed in nine countries of Congo, over the period 1990-2010, decreases with the increase in agricultural productivity. Other studies, relating to different regions, find positive, negative or null correlations or causal links.
[4] See for example Pierre Jacquemot (2017), Deforestation in Africa. How to avoid the worst?, WillAgri.
[5] In Côte d'Ivoire, forest cover decreased by 57 % between 1986 and 2015. It is now mainly confined to classified forests and protected areas, but these continue to shrink, particularly due to agricultural activity (Climate Chance, Côte d'Ivoire Reclaiming its Forests, Global Observatory of Non-State Climate Action 2018).
[6] See for example Jayachandran, S. et al. (2017), Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation, Science 357, 267-273.
[7] REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is an international initiative, coordinated by the United Nations, that aims to combat global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the degradation, destruction, and fragmentation of forests. It relies on financial incentives granted to developing countries that take measures to reduce or avoid deforestation. On the effectiveness of this mechanism, see, for example, Simonet, G. et al. (2019), Effectiveness of a REDD+ Project in Reducing Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 101, Issue 1.
[8] As the SIFCA group does, for example, in Ivory Coast with village oil palm planters.
[9] The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), which certifies around 20% of global production, adopted new, stricter standards in November 2018 aimed at better combating deforestation, protecting peatlands, preserving animal species and strengthening human rights on plantations.
[10] See, for example, in France, the actions carried out in the countries of the South by the Alliance for the Preservation of Forests and the Chocolate Union.
[11] In Thailand's Mae Hong Son province, most farmers lack land titles. The military junta has decided to prevent people in 34 villages from exploiting their land, covering an area of approximately 35,000 hectares, in the name of protecting forests (Le Monde, March 5, 2019).
[12] Organic farming is therefore popular with consumers for its lack of use of mineral fertilizers and synthetic plant protection products, but criticized by some researchers in the name of environmental protection. Its lower yields than those of conventional agriculture indirectly encourage the cultivation of meadows and forests in other countries, causing a reduction in global biodiversity and increased greenhouse gas emissions [Searchinger, TD et al. (2018), Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change, Nature].
