agriculture and ecosystem services in the tropics: theory and practice with abdon l schmitt filho,...
TRANSCRIPT
Agriculture and Ecosystem Services in the Tropics:
Theory and Practice
With Abdon L Schmitt Filho, Alfredo Fantine, Gisele Alarcon UFSC – University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazi)
Research funded by CNPq's Pesquisador VisitanteEspecial program
Joshua FarleyCommunity Development and Applied
EconomicsGund Institute for Ecological Economics
University of Vermont
X Eugen Warming Lectures in Evolutionary Ecology: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Tropics – Now and Beyond. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. December 3, 2014
Planetary Boundaries and Agriculture
Greatest threat to global ecosystems
Dependence on non-renewables
Need to feed growing population
Essential and Non-substitutable Resources
Food, water, energy, ecosystem services Essential to human survival with no adequate
substitutes Critical thresholds
Ecological Physiological
Inelastic demand Large changes in price with small changes in
quantity; small change in quantitylarge change in price
Inelastic supply Large changes in price have little impact on supply
Substitution in Agriculture
Substituting non-renewable resources for ecosystem services Tractors for draft animals NH3 and mined phosphorous for nutrient cycling
and legumes Pesticides for biological controls
Tractors and agrochemicals degrade ecosystem services
Must restore ecosystem services before non-renewables run out
Irreconcilable Thresholds?
(Scarano 2002, Camara 2003)
Atlantic Forest Biome
• Second largest rain forest of South America, covering most of the Brazilian coast
• Stretching over latitudinal 3oS to 30oS, altitudinal (0–1,800 m), and climatic gradients (1,000–4,200 mm annual rainfall)
• Extremely heterogeneous
• 20,000 species of plants, 263 mammals, 936 birds,
306 reptiles and 475 amphibians (Mittermeier 2005,
Ribeiro 2011)
Atlantic Forest Biome
• Endemism rates ranging from 30% in birds to 44% in plants (Mittermeier 2005)
Atlantic Forest Biome
Atlantic Forest Biome
• 245,173 fragments, 83,4% of are smaller than 50 ha (Putz 2012)
• Habitat loss has reached more than 90% in some centers of endemism (Ribeiro 2009)
•
Ecological research suggests that the extensive
deforestation of the Atlantic Forest has come at the cost
of system resilience, and the forest may fail to recover
from any new disturbances (Mittermeier 2011)
Atlantic Forest Biome
• Ecological threshold at ~30% forest cover, beyond which major extinction/extirpation events may occur (Banks-Leite et al., 2014)
Ecological Threshold
Island biogeography: 90% decrease in ecosystem size associated with 50% decrease in species diversity (MacArthur & Wilson 2001).
Significant time lags between forest loss and extinction (Brooks & Balmford 1996)
Strong potential to transition to new ecosystem Brief window of opportunity for action
Brazil’s National Forestry Code
Mandatory conservation and reforestation of critical ecosystems Partial amnesty after 2012
Area of Permanent Preservation (APP) 30 (up to 500) meters alongside rivers 20 – 100 meters around springs, reservoirs, etc. Steeps slopes and hilltops
Legal Forest Reserve for AF 20% of remaining property
Typical Farm
98% of Forest remnants On private proprieties
87% of the properties belong to family farmers
Santa Catarina’s family farmers
• Produce 87% of agricultural output on 44% of land
• Comprise 90% of rural population - 180 thousand families
Santa Catarina state – family farmers livelihood
• 88 % are land owners
• 61% have less than 40
hectares
• Rural-urban migration
important issue
Economic Threshold, short term
Compliance with forestry code would leave many farms nonviable
Economic Threshold, long term
Loss of ES essential to agriculture Catastrophic flooding, infrastructure loss Extensive erosion, etc., etc.
Current “Solution”
Effects of poverty immediate, of deforestation delayed
Santa Catarina’s governor: Choice between “crops or slums” Declared state forestry code allowing greater
deforestation (Souto 2009) Spurred national debate and change of
forest code
Agroecology as a Better Solution
Reduce use of off-farm, non-renewable inputs Lower costs hence lower risk Less ecological degradation
Greater diversity Greater resilience, lower risk
Improved ecological benefits
Southern Brazil Voisin Grazing Program The GPVoisin
Voisin Grazing Group – GPVoisin
Outreach Programs at The University of Santa Catariana UFSC
1998-2015
Agroecology and Ecosystem Services
Stage 0: Tabaco transitioning to conventional semi-confinement dairy
Stage 1: Voisin rotational grazing
Stage 1: Voisin rotational grazing
Higher stocking rates, yields per cow, and income
Lower expenditures on inputs Less disease Less labor (after startup) Better quality of life
Stage 2: Hi-Biodiversity Silvopastoral Systems and Ecosystem Services
Provide Shade and windbreaks Nucleation system Euterpe edulis (juçai), (bracatinga: nitrogen
fixation, timber, honey), other fruits and timber, charcoal trees, etc.
Wild bees Developed with farmers
Juçara palm - Euterpe edules Açai – Euterpe oleracea
• 50 islands ha - Non- timber forest product- NTFPs• 12% of pasture area• 24-36% of pasture shaded during summer
Stage 3: HBSPS, Agroforestry and Payments for Ecosystem Services Goal is to restore ecologically sensitive
zones with native species agroforestry system
Most farmers reluctant to comply with forestry code, willing to do so for compensation or with technical assistance
Working with SDS on PES scheme in collaboration with farmers
Comparing efficiency across practice and policy
• Allocative efficiency• Producing the right foods with
the right resources on the right land
• Distributive efficiency• Ensuring these foods go to those with the
greatest physiological need• More equitable distribution of wealth?• Alternatives to price rationing?
Food SecurityEconomic Efficiency
Physiological Demand curve
RichShift from marginal to total value (e.g. diamond-water paradox)
Poor
phys
iolo
gic
al t
hres
hold
: e.
g. s
tarv
atio
n
food
sec
urity
, hou
seho
ld s
ecur
ity
Op
por
tun
ity c
ost
Market Demand curve
PoorRich Middle class
phys
iolo
gic
al t
hres
hold
: e.
g. s
tarv
atio
n
food
sec
urity
, hou
seho
ld s
ecur
ity
Pri
ce
Food production (in calories/day/capita)
• Agroecology• More diverse
and healthier food• Greater resilience• Benefits poorest
farmers• Conventional ag
• Low diversity for processed foods and export• Low resilience
Economic Efficiency
• Policy• Fome zero• PRONAF• Programa de adquisição de
alimentos• Premium for agroecological
production
Economic Efficiency
Survey of Voisinista Farmers
98% of farmers stated investment was generating the desired returns or more.
85% claimed that the project improved their quality of life
Economic Efficiency
• Throughput broadly defined• Water, energy, fertilizers, labor, capital, land• Cannot rely on non-renewables
Technical Efficiency
• Agroecology• Voisin grazing increased milk production:
91% of farmers increased cows per hectare90% increased yield per cow total yield and revenue
• Lowered costs and inputs: 49% of farmers stated that labor requirements decreased, while 27% stated they had increased
• Before adoption 73% of farmers used pesticides, 28% over the entire pasture
• After adoption fell to 54% and 3% respectively• Decrease in ticks, horn-flies (Haematobia irritans),
worms and mastitis, hence pesticides, medicines
Technical Efficiency
• Compared 3 maiz systems• Wind pollinated agroecological• Conventional hybrid• Genetically modified
• Results• Higher yield from conventional and GMO for wealthier
farmers• Subsidized• GMO uses as many pesticides as conventional• Brazil has highest use of pesticides in world, many
banned in other countries• Much lower costs, lower risks, higher profits, greater
resilience from agroeco
Technical Efficiency: Conventional ag
• Requires major investments in R&D, extension• Economics of information
• Public funding Minimize costs, maximize benefits• Sharing knowledge
• Requires significant investments by farmers• Highest interest rates in world• High risk• PRONAF
Technical Efficiency
Technical Efficiency
• Restoring ecosystem services• Minimizing impact of throughput on
ecosystem service• Minimizing agrotoxins, fossil fuels, erosion• Accounting for non-market benefits• Open access and public goods• Cooperation required
Ecological Efficiency
• Agroecology• 72% of farmers claimed that manure decayed
faster • 85% claimed soil moister during droughts• Areas with total vegetation coverage increased
from under 2% of pastures to over 72%• Over 85% of farmers noticed improvement in soil
quality.• Carbon sequestration• Biodiversity
Ecological Efficiency
• Conventional agriculture• Highest use of pesticides in world• Many banned in other countries• Fertilizers based on non-renewable resources
• Policy• Subsidies for conventional ag and chemical inputs• Forest code
• Threat of fines• Payments for ecosystem services
• Riparian zone forests• High transaction costs• More cost effective on large farms
Ecological Efficiency
Ecological Efficiency
• Agroecology• Substitutes ecosystem services for non-
renewable inputs• Over 90% of farmers found that ticks, horn-flies
(Haematobia irritans), worms and mastitis all decreased
• 72% of farmers claimed that manure decayed faster
• 85% claimed soil moister during droughts• Pasture with complete vegetation coverage
increased from 2% to 73%• 85% of farmers noticed an improvement in soil
quality.
Ecological EfficiencyNext Phase: Agroforestry in the APPs
Farmer Attitudes towards Forest Code
3 Clusters from surveys (n=60) of Voisin farmers
Perceptive farmers (i.e. aware of ecosystem services) willing to restore APP (15%)
Perceptive famers unwilling to restore (45%) Unperceptive and unwilling to restore (40%) Willing to restore with incentives
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) Returns to agroforestry Reduced threat of fines for non-compliance
Problems with PES
Requires political will to continue indefinitely Does not finance adoption of agroecology
Extension Investment costs
High transaction costs Dependent on prices
Corn prices and conservation reserve in US May erode social economy
Policy Reform
Publicly funded RD&D 80% IRR
Alston, J.M., Marra, M.C., Pardey, P.G., Wyatt, T.J., 2000. Research returns redux: a meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 44, 185-215.
Public investments in rural sector Greater than 60% IRR in LA
López, R., Galinato, G.I., 2007. Should governments stop subsidies to private goods? Evidence from rural Latin America. Journal of Public Economics 91, 1071-1094.
Affordable, low risk credit Must design with farmers Payment contingent on success Rotating fund with zero interest
Economics of ES
Market rewards people for converting ecosystems into economic products
Few rewards for providing ecosystem services, regardless of relative value