Common Ground: Agriculture, Conservation, and the Pressure on Land

This blog was written through interviews with David Bergvinson and David Gadsden, experts on agriculture and conservation respectively.

Agriculture and conservation are often cast as rivals, yet both are essential to human survival. The tension is sharp across Africa, where rainfed farming supports hundreds of millions of people but also drives land conversion that fragments ecosystems and threatens biodiversity. The question is not whether agriculture and conservation can coexist on the same piece of land, but how to manage the trade-offs so that food systems and nature both have a future.

Land pressure and biodiversity loss

The single greatest driver of biodiversity loss in Africa is the expansion of farmland. In places where soil is degraded and productivity is low, farmers compensate by opening new land rather than improving yields on the land they already cultivate. Each step into previously un-farmed terrain shrinks migration corridors for elephants, narrows rangelands for pastoralists, and chips away at the habitats that sustain biodiversity.

The IUCN’s 2024 Agriculture and Conservation Flagship Report estimates that nearly half of the world’s extinction risk is tied to how agriculture is practiced. Shifting to sustainable systems could reduce global extinction threats by 45 percent. That statistic underscores a simple truth: the way we manage farmland has consequences far beyond the field.

Soil as the common ground

Dr. David Bergvinson reminds us that “soil is not the same as dirt. It’s a living ecosystem, a microbiome that supports plants, stores water, and cycles nutrients”. When soils are alive and thriving, they become a foundation for resilient food systems and robust ecosystems alike. Yet in much of Africa, soil stewardship has not received the priority it deserves. Poor practices such as over-tillage and heavy pesticide use strip soils of their microorganisms and long-term fertility.

The result is a vicious cycle: declining productivity pushes farmers to clear more land, accelerating biodiversity loss. Dr. Bergvinson frames soil as the “common ground” between agriculture and conservation. Investing in soil health is investing in climate resilience, food security, and biodiversity all at once.

The biodiversity deficit of farms

Even when soils are restored, the trade-offs remain. A single-species maize field, no matter how productive, cannot match the biodiversity of the savannah it replaced. As David Gadsden notes, farms can sometimes sequester more carbon than surrounding grasslands, but they will never host the thousands of species that a natural ecosystem supports. Monocultures are inherently low in biodiversity, which makes it misleading to claim that agriculture and conservation naturally align. They do not. What matters is reducing the footprint of agriculture and protecting rich ecosystems and wilderness lands.

Regenerative practices as conservation

Regenerative agriculture, when guided by science, can reduce these trade-offs. Practices that enhance root health, restore soil carbon, and improve water infiltration reduce the need to clear new land. That keeps biodiversity intact, preserves migration corridors for wildlife, and minimizes conflict between farmers and nature.

Dr. Bergvinson points out that improving photosynthetic efficiency creates a virtuous cycle: stronger roots feed sugars into the soil, strengthening the microbiome that in turn supports the plant. In this way, farmers increase yields without cutting deeper into conservation areas. These are the kinds of systemic gains that connect conservation and agriculture beneath the surface.

Managing the unavoidable trade-offs

Human–wildlife conflict in East Africa illustrates these trade-offs clearly. In Tanzania’s Serengeti region, elephants raiding maize fields can wipe out a family’s livelihood in a single night. Farmers respond with fences, which protect crops but also block wildlife migration. Solutions that allow for corridors or land-sharing arrangements are complex, but they point to the kind of planning needed if conservation and agriculture are to coexist at a landscape scale.

The IUCN report warns against one-size-fits-all prescriptions. What works in the Serengeti will not work in semi-arid Kenya, and what helps protect cranes along Korea’s rice paddies may not translate to coffee agroforestry in Uganda. Policies and practices must be tailored, grounded in local context, and guided by both ecological and social realities.

Economics and the cost of conservation

Behind every conservation-versus-agriculture debate lies an economic calculation. Conservation is expensive, and land is under constant pressure. Gadsden pointed to conservancies in Kenya that have had to sell parcels for farming in order to finance their broader conservation goals. Meanwhile, global agricultural subsidies continue to favor practices that harm biodiversity rather than reward those that sustain it. Reforming these policies is essential if we want to shift the balance.

Toward system-level solutions

The way forward may seem complex, but several priorities are clear. Strengthening soil health can boost yields and reduce pressure to clear new land. Protecting irreplaceable habitats and species must remain non-negotiable. Policies should align agricultural incentives with conservation outcomes, and communities must be engaged in designing the trade-offs they are asked to live with.

Agriculture and conservation may not always coexist on the same parcel, but at the scale of landscapes and systems, they can be balanced. Doing so requires more than slogans. It requires acknowledging the complexity, facing the costs, and investing in approaches that nourish both people and the planet.