Assessing the sustainability and resiliency of GIAHS

systems: a methodological contribution

Miguel A. Altieri

Clara I. Nicholls

University of California-Berkeley

And

Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA)

www.agroeco.org/socla

SOCIETY NATURE T

IM

E

Coevolutionary biocultural landscapes

KOSMOS

(beliefs)

CORPUS

(knowledge)

PRAXIS

(practices)

N

A

T

U

R

E

K: Image o representation (BELIEVE) C: Reading or Interpretation (KNOW) P: Use oandmanagement (DO)

Etno-ecólogoProductor rural

PRAXIS

CORPUSKOSMOS

Etno-ecólogoProductor rural

PRAXIS

CORPUSKOSMOS

Farms inserted in complex landscape matrix

How many peasant farmers? (ETC 2009)

• 1, 5 billion peasant farmers

• 380 million farms

• Globally: > 90% of the world’s farms are small , < 2 ha.

• 1.9 million crop varieties

Peasants and world food

Produce 50-75% of food consumed by world population, but use :

• 25- 30% of the agricultural land

• 30% water used in agriculture

• 20 % fossil fuels used in agriculture.

Livelihoods assets

Financial Capital

Natural Capital

Social

Capital

Physical Capital

Human Capital

GIAHS farmers

Slide 2 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Rice-fish culture (RFC) systems in Longxian

village, Qingtian County, Zhejiang Province, China

China Rice Fish

Natural Capital indicators Soil quality: level of aggregation, soil cover, signs of erosion, amount of decomposing residues, presence of invertebrates, etc Crop health: plant growth, signs of nutrient deficiencies, disease or pest incidence or damage, weed pressure, production-yields, etc On farm agrobiodiversity: number of crop species per farm, presence of fish and azolla, number of rice varieties grown, ratio of local versus modern varieties present Integrity of surrounding landscape matrix Resiliency: capacity of the system to resist external shocks ( extreme climatic events, pest-disease attack, lack of inputs) and rate of recovery from shock.

Social Capital Level of organization ( political, labor, market, etc) Collective work and actions Participation in community affairs, Role of women in management and decision making, etc Circuits of exchange of knowledge, technologies, seeds, etc Economic Capital Income Dependence on external inputs, energy , etc Access to institutional services (credit, extension, extension, information,etc) Access to local-regional markets Food sovereignty: proportion of food consumed by the family produced on farm, food and nutritional variety Infrastructure (Physical) Capital Access to reasonable levels of technology (mechanization, etc) State of terraces, irrigation canals, etc Access to markets, urban areas (level of isolation) Ecotourism infrastructure and carrying capacity

Agrobiodiversity: Higher values given if > 3-4 rice varieties per field and more local than modern varieties. Higher values if > number of fish species and if fish move as they aerate rice plants and control insects. Density of azolla ( high values if sparse- fish can eat, low value if dense-sign of eutrophication) Surrounding matrix Higher values if fields surrounded by forests . According to farmers forests are key for water conservation and abundance in fields. Traditional knowledge Higher values to farms where farmers still preserve old cultural management techniques such as planting crops in terrace mounds, making and adding compost, using ancient local varieties,etc Soil quality Higher value to soils with lots of aggregates and that are not compacted, that have been heavily manured and rice straw incorporated into soil. Crop health Higher value to plants that exhibit green foliage, with leaves not easily broken, without signs of disease or insect attack.

Resiliency Higher values to farms that have high rice varietal diversity, presence of fish and with good water and soil management. Some farmers also mentioned yield variation, risk of crop loss and food self sufficiency in variable years as key criteria for estimating resiliency Social organization Most farmers rated low this indicator as they plant and tend their fields individually and rarely conduct farming activities collectively Dependence Most farmers continue using their own seeds, recycle rice straw and manure from pigs and ducks for soil fertility. Most farmers don’t use agrochemicals. Food sovereignty < than 20% of the food consumed by families comes from outside the farms. In larger terraces farmers grow vegetables and/or practice rotations of rice and vegetables. Many grow vegetables in the terrace mounds. Institutional support Most farmers have little access to credit, extension, information and markets. Less than 30% of the rice and fish are sold outside of the province. At times dry fish is marketed abroad.

Figure 2. Amoeba representing indicators at RFC systems

0

5

10agrobiodiversity

surrounding matrix

soil quality

crop health

resiliency

traditional knowledge

social organization

dependence

food sovereignity

institutional access

Indicator value

Scenarios--------------------------------------------->

Capital Sustainability Indicators Expand Introductions Agroecological Environmental

Markets of GMOs Interventions Protector Regulations

Natural

Biodiversity - + / - + / - + / -

Soil quality + / - + / - + / - + / -

Yields + / - + / - + / - + / -

Social Food security + / - + / - + / - + / -

Organization + / - + / - + / - + / -

Participation + / - + / - + / - + / -

Human

Nutrition, Health + / - + / - + / - + / -

TEK Skills + / - + / - + / - + / -

Cultural identity + / - + / - + / - + / -

Physical

Fuel, energy + / - + / - + / - + / -

Water and materials + / - + / - + / - + / -

Rural infrastructure + / - + / - + / - + / -

Economic

Income, savings + / - + / - + / - + / -

Access to land, markets, inputs + / - + / - + / - + / -

labor availability + / - + / - + / - + / -

Intensification of coffee systems

Bio

div

ersi

ty

Eco

syst

em s

ervi

ces

Mud slides post Mich in conventional (C) and agroecological (A) Farms

Extreme Climatic Event

Farming System Resiliency

Surrounding Landscape Heterogeneity

Vegetational Complexity

Soil and Water Management

Inter cropping

Genetic diversity

Animal integration

SOM SAFs Soil

cover Water

harvesting

If a hurricane strikes your cacao farm will they resist?

Color Situation Action Numerical

Value

Green Low Vulnerability or

High Resilience

Maintain the level of

management / conservation

(Vigilance)

5

Yellow Medium vulnerability Must do something to

improve (caution) 3 – 4

Red High vulnerability Must do much to improve

(Risk) 1 – 2

Traffic light methodology to assess vulneravility status of agroecosystems

Indicador Red Yellow Green

High (5) Medium (3-4) Low (1-2)

1. Landscape diversity

2. Slope

3. Exposure

4. Windbreaks or hedgerows

5. Proximity to forest

6. Proximity to river

7. Soil conservation practices

8. Soil structure (infiltration)

9. Drainage works

10. Plant diversity

11. Stratification

12. DAP of dominant trees

13. Root depth of dominant trees

14. Soil cover

15. Self sufficiency (% food produced on farm)

Indices of vulnerability resilience as perceived by farmers in Talamanca, Costa Rica

Red Yellow Green

High (4-5) Medium (2-3) Low (1)

Parameter Diversified,

Rustic Cacao Agroforest (A)

Simplified, Rustic Cacao

Agroforest (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)

Slope x x

Exposure x x

Landscape diversity x x

Proximity to Forest x x

Windbreaks x x

Soil Practices x x

Plant Diversity x x

Soil Structure x x

Soil Cover x x

Root Depth x x

0

1

2

3

4

5Infiltration

Sllope

Exposure

Landscapediversity

Proximity toforests

Wind breaks

Soilconservation

prractices

Plant diversity

Soil cover

Root depth

Resiliency indicators in 2 cacao agroforests

DIVERSIFIEDMULTISTRATAAGROFOREST

CACAO + BANANA

What happens if the farms stays in Red?

How to transition from

Red to Yellow?

How to transition from Yellow to Green?

Risk of high damage

Start implementing

agroecological practices (medium damage)

Achieve complete

agroecological design (low damage)

Oriente Antioqueno, Colombia

Reactive Capacity and Recovery RISK ⁼

Threat ₊ Vulnerability

RISK (Damage Level)

CLIMATIC THREAT VULNERABILITY REACTIVE CAPACITY

•Frequency •Intensity •Duration

•Landscape matrix •Vegetation diversity •Soil organic matter •Soil cover •Slope, exposure, etc.

•Farmers knowledge •Management skills •Access to resources •Diversity of enterprises, etc.

Physical Vulnerability

Renaser (El Carmen)

El Jardín (San Cristóbal)

La Subienda (San Cristóbal)

Cocondo (Titiribí)

VULNERABILITY LEVEL

1. SLOPE Slope 2,68% 22,90% 8,20% 58,68

2. DIVERSITY

LANDSCAPE

Diversity

Landscape Medium Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk

3. SOIL´S EROSION SUSCEPTIBILITY

Infiltration Fast

(5,16 min) Fast

(9 min) Fast

(6 min) Fast

(2,8 min)

Soil Structure Low Density Medium Density

Medium Density

Low Density

Compaction Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk

Erosion signs Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk

Ag

roeco

log

ical

Man

ag

em

en

t (a

)

Co

nven

tio

na

l M

an

ag

em

en

t (c

)

Cocondo “Pasture” Santa Ana

(Fredonia) La Rosita

(San Cristóbal)

VULNERABILITY LEVEL

1. SLOPE Slope 47,7 60,62 8,00%

2. DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE

Diversity Landscape

Low Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk

3. SOIL´S EROSION

SUSCEPTIBILITY

Infiltration Moderate (66 min) Fast (0,5 min) Fast (4 min)

Soil Structure High density Low Density Medium Density

Compaction Medium Risk Low Risk Low Risk

Erosion signs Low Risk Medium Risk Low Risk

Physical indicators of

vulnerability

p < 0,631

Agroecological

Farms (a)

Conventional

Farms (c) (a – c) ((a – c)/c)*100 (%)

Slope 2,94 2,47 0,48 19,33

Diversity Landscape

3,41 3,56 -0,15 -4,17

Infiltration 5,00 4,22 0,78 18,56

Soil Structure 3,87 2,47 1,41 57,04

Compaction 5,00 4,22 0,78 18,56

Erosion signs 5,00 4,22 0,78 18,56

General average 4,12 3,43 0,68 21,31

Agroecological

Conventional

Response capacity

Ag

roeco

log

ical

Man

ag

em

en

t (a

)

Renaser (El Carmen)

El Jardín (San Cristóbal)

La Subienda (San Cristóbal)

Cocondo (Titiribí)

RESPONSE CAPACITY

SO

IL C

ON

SE

RV

AT

ION

P

RA

CT

ICE

S

Soil Cover > 50% > 50% 10 - 50 % > 50%

Living Barriers > 50% > 50% 10 - 50 % > 50%

Conservation Tillage > 50% > 50% 10 - 50 % > 50%

Water Management Medium Medium Medium Alto

Soil Organic Management High (>3) High (> 3) High (> 3) Medium (1 – 2)

Terraces (Contour line, multiestrata

system)

High (Contour line)

High (Contour line)

None High

(multiestrata)

% Food produced on-farm High (> 60%) High (> 60%)

Medium

(20 - 60%) Low (<20)

Independence from external

inputs 10 - 50% 10 - 50% 10 - 50% 10 - 50%

Seed banks High High Medium High

Animal forage 10 - 50% 10 - 50% 10 - 50% 10 - 50%

Crop Diversity High (> 2) Medium (= 2) Medium (=2) High (> 2)

Protected areas within farm < 10 % > 30 % < 10 % < 10 %

Soil Texture

Franco - Limoso

Franco - Limoso

Franco Franco – Limoso

Co

nven

tio

na

l M

an

ag

em

en

t (c

)

Cocondo “Pasture”

Santa Ana

(Fredonia)

La Rosita

(San Cristóbal)

RESPONSE CAPACITY

SO

IL C

ON

SE

RV

AT

ION

P

RA

CT

ICE

S

Soil Cover > 50% > 50% < 10%

Living Barriers < 10% 10 - 50 % < 10%

Conservation Tillage 10 - 50 % > 50% 10 - 50 %

Water Management Medium Low Medium

Soil Organic Management Medium (1 – 2) Medium (1 – 2) Medium (1 – 2)

Terraces (Contour line, multiestrata

system) None Medium Medium

% Food produced on-farm Low (<20) Low (<20) Low (<20)

Independence from external

inputs 10 - 50% > 50% 10 - 50%

Seed banks Low Low Low

Animal forage 10 - 50% 10 - 50% > 50 %

Crop Diversity Low (monoculture) Medium (=2) Low (monoculture)

Protected areas within farm < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %

Soil Texture Franco - Limoso Franco - Limoso Franco - Arenoso

Ind

icato

rs o

f

Re

sp

on

se

Ca

pac

ity

p < 0,0159

Agroecológical

Farms (a)

Conventional

Farm (c) (a – c) ((a – c)/c)*100 (%)

Soil Cover 4,40 2,92 1,48 50,50

Living Barriers 4,40 1,44 2,96 205,12

Conservation

Tillage 4,40 3,56 0,84 23,72

Water

Management 3,41 2,08 1,33 63,87

Soil Organic

Management 4,40 3,00 1,40 46,69

Terraces (Contour line, multiestrata

system) 2,94 2,08 0,86 41,48

% Food produced on-farm

2,94 1,00 1,94 194,28

Independence from external inputs

3,00 2,08 0,92 44,22

Seed banks 4,40 1,00 3,40 340,06

Animal forage 3,00 2,08 0,92 44,22

Crop Diversity 3,87 1,44 2,43 168,54

Protected areas within farm

1,32 1,00 0,32 31,61

Soil Texture 5,00 5,00 0,00 0,00

General average 3,48 1,95 1,45 96,48

Agroecological

Conventional

El Jardín

Rena-ser

La Subienda

La Rosita

Cocondo

Cocondo

Santa Ana

Risk triangle Very high risk

Response Capacity

High risk x T

High risk x V

Medium risk

Medium risk x T

Medium risk x V

Low risk

Very low risk

Conceptual framework to examine the socio-ecological resiliency features of GIAHS traditional farming systems

Thank you!!