(Transcribed by TurboScribe.ai. Go Unlimited to remove this message.) Welcome to Mind the Globe, the podcast where we dive into some of today's most pressing global challenges.
We are a team of seven international students from the Junior Research Lab at Institut Agro Montpellier, here to explore the issues that shape our world and our future.
Hello and welcome to Mind the Globe, Junior Research Talk.
My name is Sara and today we are here to talk about land use change.
It refers to the human-induced conversion of natural ecosystems such as forests, grasslands or wetlands into agricultural land, urban areas or industrial sites.
The main drivers of this change are agricultural expansion and urbanisation.
It is one of the most critical challenges to global sustainability as it disrupts ecosystems, reduces biodiversity, alters biochemical cycles and contributes to planetary boundary crossing, such as climate change and freshwater depletion.
To dive deeper into this topic, I am here with Professor Dr. Sonoko Bellingrath-Kimura.
Thank you for taking your time to join us today.
Okay, hello everybody.
Could you please start by introducing yourself and your background?
I am an agronomist and my background is soil science and crop science, so I do everything that is related with crop production.
I understand that you are a professor for land use systems.
So, as opposed to land use change, which is about transformation, you focus on the system thinking and the interactions and management of land within its current use.
Could you please explain what drew your attention to this work?
Yes, my professorship is called land use system and I always loved the aspect of the system, not either plant or soil, but the relation of plant and soil and especially humans in agriculture.
So, I am not a biologist, I am an agronomist, so I really want to manage the field, be active as a human in the nature.
And of course, then it will be the most biggest question is the land use.
So, how you manage your land, it starts from the crops, crop rotation, but also on a longer term or bigger terms, grassland, arable land, paddy fields or forest.
So, there will be different categories in long term, but you can also go in short term and also very short term with the management of nutrients.
So, that's why it's a system, it's a different scale in time and space and that really attracts me.
And what would you say are the latest exciting breakthroughs in that field?
Like, what do you think are scientists particularly excited about?
There are various aspects, but one is that we can valorise ecosystem services.
That means that this agriculture does not produce only a kilogramme tonnes of grains, but it produces also biodiversity, underground water, carbon storage, microclimate and so on.
So, those aspects can be also, if you measure them and then you can prove that those are enhanced by agricultural activities, then you can also have a value on it.
And this is much more coming also because of the digitalisation, much more possibilities for monitoring in this, so that those proving the aspects, they exist at the moment and currently also going on the worst case, that it's rather polluting and then it gets punished.
But you can also use it in a positive way, that you can use agricultural activities, soil use as services.
And to put value on it is one of the big targets we, in my area, researchers are now looking at.
While I was researching for this interview, I noticed that your work strongly focusses on ecosystem services, which are the many benefits human gains from healthy and functioning ecosystems.
For example, essentials like food and water, climate regulation and opportunities for recreation and education.
Would you say your aim is primarily to raise awareness about what nature gives back to us?
Or is it more about creating economic incentives by assigning value to these services?
Yes, ecosystem service would be just one aspect of nature, which is valuable for humans.
So there are many functions that exist and if we humans don't use it, it's not a service for us.
So that's why it is some kind of use, that's the definition of ecosystem service.
And currently agriculture can do a lot of services, but there is kind of a side effect.
And at the moment more on this bad side of the side effects.
So for example, soil erosion or greenhouse gas emission from the soils or nitrate leaching.
And so we'll be in the much more focus that agriculture is doing something bad.
But if the same management, same agriculture can also improve those nutrient holding capacities and carbon storage and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
So to put this arrow on the other side, so that it is agriculture is not a meter or a source of pollution, but a valuable actor for those services.
So that is currently, but in the agriculture production is totally missing.
Because the economic value are on the grain or on the land surface with the subsidise of the European government.
So it is not the value, the ecosystem service.
And that's why we have to change this mind to put the whole value agriculture can provide, to put it much more on the focus, so that we can also target this one much, not as a side effect, but as a main purpose of agricultural activity.
It is very fascinating to see how ecosystem services are changing from being a byproduct to the central purpose of agriculture.
This involves balancing multiple objectives and dealing with a fair amount of complexity.
Speaking of dealing with complexity, what would you say are you most proud of in your career so far?
Well, I am proud that I am still trying to tackle this complexity itself.
Everybody would agree that the system is important, but it is very easy to get lost in detail.
And as you are a specialist, you get one aspect and you can dig very deep into the mechanism and aspects.
You have to consider if you go into detail and you get easily lost.
And then you lose the system.
So I did not get lost in detail.
So that is my strength.
But of course, it is at the same time my weakness that I am not a detailed specialist.
It is very interesting to hear that your ability to see the big picture and not get lost in details is both a strength and a challenge.
I believe this broader perspective seems to be essential for tackling complex projects.
Speaking of which, let's talk about your project DAKIS.
It stands for Decision Support for Agricultural Systems.
Can you explain what it does and your role in it?
So DAKIS is one of my projects that I am proud of because I really can realise my system thinking.
We are a very diverse team with a lot of different disciplinary backgrounds.
So computer scientists to agronomists, social scientists, economists, modellers.
And so we are quite a lot of different people.
And the target is to provide decision support because the decision depends on the purpose.
And the purpose cannot be done by an AI because it is content specific and it is also a kind of taste and what the farmers or the person wants to do.
So it is a preference, not a defined decision an AI can do because there are so many options.
So the end goal is a tool that helps farmers to see the impact of their decisions.
Did I understand that right?
It will be rather a planning tool so that if the farmer wants to optimise his crop rotation or land use or think about how to increase biodiversity,
then he can use our system, check, I want to increase my bio, put the information of the farm, then of the area,
and then put some preference whether he wants to maintain yield or increase biodiversity and accepting yield reduction if it is compensated with some other economics.
So this kind of presorting is necessary from the farm side.
Then the system will analyse where is the hotspot or cold spot in the farm where improvement can be possible with which kind of economic consequences and so on.
But we think that it is not only for a farm useful but also for advisors or also policymakers to get an overview where are hotspots, cold spots, what kind of measure is useful in an area to improve and then they can play around or put some economic incentive like eco schemes to those measures.
So that will be our second target so that not only hands-on decision support for the farmers is one side, but also for a bigger planning tool and investigating what kind of measure is necessary for a region can be also used in this DAKIS system.
And we think also the stakeholders are important to have this decision, not to get some system ready to go from AI, but you have to decide, you have to be aware of what you want to do and what's your purpose.
In order to make it easier for everyone to understand your statement, I'm going to give a short explanation.
In agriculture, hotspots are locations with particularly high values for certain attributes such as productivity, biodiversity or greenhouse gas emissions and may require special management to control risks or maximise benefits.
Whereas cold spots refer to locations with low values and may indicate underutilised land, degraded areas or carbon sinks and offer opportunities for conservation or improvement.
I saw that you mentioned in a previous interview that agriculture has a great potential for the future and is a key driver of change.
How would you say can agriculture play a role in mitigating climate change when we're talking about land use change?
And agriculture is obviously the biggest factor of destroying or changing our land use.
Could you please elaborate on this?
Yeah, one thing is that you have to make it much more site-specific.
So, for example, peatland, drained peatland and cultivate, it has a big emission, so you have to avoid those ones.
On the other hand, there can be also various systems in agriculture like agroforestry or now it's upcoming agrophotovoltaic systems, so you can integrate in agriculture different use methods.
And I see this one as the biggest contribution because it's not biology and you just don't let it go, but there are humans who are working with nature.
And that's also, again, different than engineering because you cannot control everything.
Agriculture is embedded in this nature.
That's why I think this attitude, how to adapt to the change, also to the climate change, go much more deeper to the condition of the site-specific, how it will be best to use, to optimise it.
I think about various use of the agricultural use, not only cutting everything and then plant, but also going, for example, with agroforestry systems can be also a lot of variability.
So I think there are various aspects that are positive in agriculture.
It is in intensive form and if it is focused only on the production, it gets negative.
So we have to get rid of it, but looking to the other services agriculture can provide and then harmonise those services with the production.
I think then it is possible to have a sustainable productivity also for the food security, but also for, in the long run, also a stable yield because of those various services agriculture soil can provide.
So, to briefly explain what you said, agroforestry integrates trees and shrubs into farming systems to boost biodiversity, soil health and sustainability, while agrivoltaics combines agriculture with solar energy to retain moisture and diversify farmer income.
Do you believe these techniques should be prioritised and what other changes would you like to see in your field?
Change is not the right word, but we have to further intensify those systems thinking because it is very easy to get lost in some specific aspects.
And also more interdisciplinary work, that we work with other disciplines together to get this depth in the understanding and also this system thinking.
So this is not a change because in a long time scientists tried to do it, but it is really hard because it is very easy to be in deep disciplinary scientists compared to interdisciplinary scientists.
That is a challenge we always face and we need further to tackle this one.
Another point will be that it is much more transdisciplinary work is necessary.
That means going out from the science to the society and also the reality and that will be much more important and again very challenging because as a scientist you have limited time and also the vocabulary and how you talk is you are trained as a scientist and it is not very comprehensive for the normal society to understand this one.
But we as scientists have to learn to talk to the others also among the disciplines but also beyond the disciplines and I think it is a necessary step.
It is not that it should be changed, I think we are already trying to do it, but we need to further go on in this direction.
Based on your work with farmers in rural areas, how do they perceive agriculture's role in society, especially regarding climate change, sustainability and subsidies and also how do they feel about their public image and collaborations with scientists to address these challenges?
Yes, it is currently very difficult because then those political decisions are not in favour of talking with the scientists.
Most of the farmers I meet are aware of the problem and also see them as an important actor but feel like they are ignored.
I think that is the biggest problem of those farmers' protests, that the farmers who do a big job and also have to follow a lot of rules are ignored by their decisions.
And this is a perception, it is not always true, because you can also do it without EU money and can do whatever you want, but it is not economically possible.
So in these constraints there is a big dilemma of the farmers and individually they really are highly capable to adapt to the change, most of them.
But the economic pressure is quite high so that it is not possible to react as they would like to do.
And then to regulate them so that they do everything well, it is against their own perception and their own will and you need to be their willingness and you have to be appreciated what you do, not punished and regulated.
Since you mentioned the farmers' protests, I will briefly recapitulate what happened.
The 2024 European farmer protests began in late 2023 due to dissatisfaction with low food prices, environmental regulations on nitrogen limits and pesticide bans, and trade agreements with non-EU countries such as Ukraine and Mercosur.
Farmers from different parts of the EU held road blockades and demonstrations to protest against policies related to the European Green Deal and cuts to diesel subsidies.
The EU responded by scaling back some of these measures, reflecting the tension between environmental goals and the economic realities of farming.
We see that these policy implementations and reforms have not been favoured.
In your view, what would you say is the most effective policy instrument for managing land system change, particularly in agriculture?
And given the role of direct payments and the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, under DG Agriculture, how can these mechanisms be optimised to balance environmental sustainability and agriculture productivity?
It should go away from the payment for the area, so it has to be much more about putting incentives on the payment for ecosystem services, if possible also result-orientated payments.
So that will be one way to make a market of other things, not the grains, not the area, but the ecosystem service.
I think that is one of the important policies that has to be changed.
It is difficult, sure, it is not easy, but there are possibilities in digital technologies, supporting tools and so on.
Theoretically, it is possible.
So we have to go in this direction, to go away from the area-based payment and also this regulating, rather than giving incentives to do something good, then you get the payment, rather than punishing.
So, right now, the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, is the main form of financial support for farmers. In the European Union,
the main role of direct payments is to stabilise farmers' incomes.
They are usually paid according to the area of land used, regardless of production.
This type of payment has been criticised as CAP direct payments favour large landowners, are not well targeted at small farmers and do not contribute to addressing environmental challenges.
You also disagree with direct payments.
Do you mean by incentives, for example that there should be higher prices for nitrogen fertilisers?
That will be also one way, yes.
If the material is getting expensive, surely the input will reduce, but then it is also rather not a positive incentive.
Punishment?
Yes, I was going to say,
Not direct punishment, but it is not a positive way of thinking.
Can you give any example of a positive incentive which may encourage farmers to be more sustainable?
Yes, one would be, there is a marketplace called AgoraNatura, where farmers can sell ecosystem services.
So, it is a marketplace, they are planting flowering stripes or connecting, making biodiversity corridors or beetle banks and so on.
They can put it in this market, and if there are persons who buy it, then they will conduct it.
So, there will be a direct market for ecosystem services.
It is not result-orientated yet, but it is a kind of direct payment for those measures, and it can be, it is not subsidised, and so it can be more an incentive.
If I want to do this one, who wants to buy my work?
So, it can be one way to do.
Another example is for organic farms, there is a certification system from the EDEKA and WWF, where Agriculture for Biodiversity it is called, its name.
And then, if you fulfil several criteria, then you get a certification and you can sell your product with a higher price.
And here we have a lot of farmers also still increasing in, for example, meat or also grain production, so that you have something in addition, even though they are organic, they have something additionally doing some measures that is for biodiversity, and they get a higher price for their products.
It is also not a governmental system, it is a market system, and it can be also one way to do.
My last question is, what do you wish everybody should know or remember about your topic, and what do you wish more people understood about your field?
I think that important thing, so the message I would spread is that agriculture is not only production, not only production of food, but they can produce quite a lot.
And called ecosystem services, which is underground water protection, carbon storage, biodiversity and so on, but those are not the target now.
So that is the problem, because of the high focus on the productivity, those services are lost or even in a worse condition, that it is going to pollute the underground water, for example.
That has been changed in the agriculture, that also those services should be targeted as a production or as an activity goal, then I think it can be also this value of agriculture activities that has a lot of services, can be much more utilised, not only the production.
So it is important to have a production of food, feed and fibre and so on, but it is not the only thing.
So I think that is my biggest mission, I am researching on that to harmonise all those services and to optimise it in various countries.
I have worked in all continents except the Antarctic, so that is why I also want to continue living, working and researching in different contexts, because it is so valuable to see different aspects.
Thank you Sonoko for joining us today.
I am going to summarise our interview.
Our conversation has explored the critical role of land use systems and how they intersect with global challenges such as climate change and sustainability.
We have discussed the importance of ecosystem services, not just as byproducts of agriculture, but as essential contributions to biodiversity, water protection and carbon storage.
We also discussed how tools like DAKIS are changing the way farmers make decisions, helping them to balance productivity with environmental protection.
What really surprised me was to realise how agriculture can be a driver of change, balancing food security with environmental conservation.
To all our listeners, I hope this episode inspires you to think in new ways about the systems that sustain our planet and the innovative ways we can work together to improve them.
Thank you Sonoko for joining us here today on Mind the Globe and thanks everyone for listening.