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