Yellowhammer

• The yellowhammer is a widespread species found throughout much of Europe and central Asia. 
• Initially it thrived in a human landscape – as a generalist, farmland provided an ideal habitat. However, it has declined by 50% in Britain since the mid-1980s, largely due to the intensification of farming. These declines are happening elsewhere too, and other farmland bird species are also affected.
• It eats insects and seeds, and lack of food can be a problem. Herbicides have become more efficient, meaning there are fewer weeds to produce seeds, and our farms are tidier, so less grain is spilled. Insects are also declining. 
• In the UK, population declines have caused the yellowhammer to be put on the Red List. It is declining globally, but its widespread distribution means it is listed as Least Concern by the IUCN. 
• Learn more about the yellowhammer from the RSPB. 
• Read more about the reasons behind farmland bird declines.

Scottish crossbill

• In complete contrast to the yellowhammer, the Scottish crossbill has a very small distribution. It is found only in the Scots pine forests of the Scottish Highlands, but not in any other habitats. Its distinctive crossed beak is perfect for prising open pinecones, meaning it is a specialist to the pine forests.
• It has been hard to discover how many Scottish crossbills there are, because they look so similar to the common crossbill. However, the British Trust for Ornithology did a survey in 2008 and estimated that there are around 6,800 pairs of crossbills. We don’t know whether they are declining. It is Amber Listed in the UK, and it is listed as Least Concern by the IUCN. 
• Learn more about the Scottish crossbill from the RSPB. 

The debate: land sharing vs land sparing

Yellowhammers and Scottish crossbills have very different requirements. Yellowhammers are generalists which thrive on farmland, whereas Scottish crossbills are specialists which need a very specific habitat. They will therefore benefit from very different approaches, in what has been dubbed the ‘land sharing’ vs ‘land sparing’ debate. 

The best strategy for yellowhammers would be to farm in a less intensive way. We might allow more ‘weeds’ to grow on farms, use fewer pesticides, and plant more hedgerows. The result is likely to be lower yields (less food produced per hectare), but more wildlife could live on farmland. This is called land sharing. 

The Scottish crossbill, in contrast, would benefit from land sparing. We would farm as intensively as we can to increase yields, so we use as little land for food production as possible. We then have more land left over for wildlife. This leaves a variety of other habitats, which support a greater range of species. If the goal of nature conservation is to protect the greatest number of species, then land sparing is the best approach. This has caused some conservationists to argue that we should shift our focus away from wildlife-friendly farming, and instead increase yields so that less land is used for farming. 

But is the goal of conservation to protect the greatest number of species? Why? Perhaps it would be better to keep numbers of common species high? After all, we benefit most from the species that live around us. For a start, birds such as the yellowhammer bring us great pleasure, yet most people in the UK have never seen a Scottish crossbill. Gulls and crows provide a free waste-removal service in cities and beyond by scavenging on carcasses, but are undervalued because they aren’t endangered. Likewise, mice can reduce farmland weeds by eating seeds, and blue tits control garden pests such as greenfly. There may be far fewer Scottish crossbills than yellowhammers, but why does that make a Scottish crossbill more important than a yellowhammer?  

Some people question whether the land sparing approach is sustainable. If we farm intensively now, this might not be sustainable. There are also questions about how we are going ensure land is spared. Farming more intensively won’t automatically mean that more land is available for nature. We would need a policy to make sure this happens, and a strategy to ensure it is done fairly. Would we pay farmers to set aside some of their land for nature? Recent analysis suggests that our current subsidies for wildlife-friendly farming would be better spent on land sparing. Alternatively, larger areas of land could be managed by governments or charities. This can create new jobs, and perhaps have wider benefits such as making land available for people to visit, but many farmers feel they are being pushed out of their land. 

This debate has no easy answers, and people will prioritise different things depending on their values. The choice isn’t as simple as ‘sharing vs sparing’ as there are sometimes ways to make farms better for wildlife without reducing yields. Sometimes, we already have solutions that we can implement, such as allocating unproductive areas of fields to semi-natural habitat to increase the number of pollinators. Growing a greater diversity of crops and using organic fertilisers can sustain high yields while reducing the use of synthetic fertilisers. More research is needed, so if your debate is about how to spend money, this could be an option.

Changing farming practices isn’t the only way to tackle farmland bird declines – keeping dogs on leads is a way to help without compromising food production, for example. 

We don’t necessarily need to make farming more intensive to reduce the land needed for agriculture – we can also change our diets. On average, animal products require more land to produce than crops. Beef, lamb and hard cheese are particularly bad. Best of all, we can waste less food.