Conferencia integrada en el ciclo Espacio de Conocimiento Abierto de la Escuela Politécnica Superior de Huesc

Bernués Jal, Alberto

citaREA Repositorio Electrónico Agroalimentario

29/04/20151Alberto Bernuésabernues@aragon.esEvaluación de la sostenibilidad y delos servicios de los ecosistemas de laagricultura de montaña1. Introducción2. Sostenibilidad2.1 Tres pillares, conflictos y sinergias2.2 Producción animal y medio ambiente3. Servicios de los ecosistemas y agricultura en Guara3.1 Valoración biofísica3.2 Valoración socio-cultural3.3 Valoración económica4. ConclusionesGuión29/04/201521. IntroductionMultiple functions of agriculture29/04/201532. Sustainability“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs.” (UN Brundtland report, 1987)Sustainability is the capacity to endure… it is the long-term maintenance of responsibility, which has environmental, economic, and social dimensionsa definition…Multipurpose use of livestock in less favoured areas of EU29/04/20154ENVIRONMENT:land use, landscape, biodiversityECONOMICS:profitabilitySOCIAL:family and labourSUSTAINABILITY GRAZING AGRO-ECOSYSTEMSTIMEreproducibility (equity)tenvironment(institutional,socio-economics,physical)climate changedroughts, variability, extreme events markets/ consumersconsumption trendscosts, pricesmulti-functionalitylandscape, biodiversity,(ecosystem services)other sectors of the economytourism, urbanization, infrastructuresagricultural policiesother sectorial policiestrade agreementsglobal changepopulationenergyconceptual framework to study sustainability of agro-ecosystemsenvironmentland use, natural resourcessocial factorsfamily and labourfarmeconomicsprofitabilitymanagement intensification vs. extensification ?29/04/201552.1 Pillars of sustainability: trade-offs and synergies MATERIAL & METHODSMONITORED FARMS1 lambing/ yearCheese makersMeat producersMeat producersBasqueCountryAragonCatalonia3 lambings/ 2 year1 lambing/ year5 lambings/ 3 yearRipoll-Bosch et al., (2011)Case study: Mediterranean sheep29/04/20156Sustainability issues: participatory SWOT analysisWeaknesses and Threats: Low productivity Access to land Continuity and generational turnover Abandonment of grazing  CAP dependency Increasing dependence on inputs and raising prices Low prices of raw products Conflicts between agriculture and conservation (predation)Strengths and Opportunities: Systems integrated within their environments Availability of local resources Agro-silvo-pastoralism Low environmental impact Landscape maintenance Adding value activities (cheese) Quality Labels (PDO,PGI)indicators, attributes and pillarsATRIBUTE INDICATOR Pillar INDICATOR Pillar€ €€ €€ €Productivity(8)Labour productivity 16%Animal productivity 15%Economic efficiency 14%Land productivity 13%€Feed efficiency 13%Animal sales 12%Herd fertility 9%Animal/ WU 8%€S S€ EStab, rel, res.(5)Farm continuity 32%Off-farm income 22%Advisory services 21% SFacilities 15%Wildlife conflicts 10%€ S€ ES SAdaptability(7)No. Incomes 23%Main agric. income 17%Education 16%Land access 17% SDistance markets 10%Communal areas 10%Distance toSlaughterhouse 7%S SS SE SE EEquity(10)Salary level 14%Satisfaction level 13%Grazing 13%Energy efficiency 13%Protected areas 11% EDistance to services 11%Hired labour 8%Leisure time 6%Stocking rate 6%Local breeds 5% E€ €€ €€ €Self-sufficiency(7)Feed self-sufficiency 18%Forage self-sufficiency 16%Indebtedness 15%Family labour 14% SOwn area 13%Subsidies 13%Added-value 11%29/04/20157stakeholders perception of sustainability: farmers point of viewImportance of indicators• 46% economics• 35% social • 19% environmentalTop 3 per attribute• 60% economics• 33% social • 7% environmentalPolicy makers’ priorities• Climate change (GHG)• Pollution• Water• Land use change• Landscape• BiodiversityFarmers’ priorities • Maximize grazing• Energy efficiency• Use of protected areas• Stocking rate• Local breeds• Wildlife conflictstrade-offs among sustainability pillars0%20%40%60%80%SocialEnvironmentalEconomic1L/1Y 3L/2Y 5L/3Y Dintensification29/04/2015802550751001L/1Y 3L/2Y 5L/3Y D01234561L/1Y 3L/2Y 5L/3Y DOff-farm income (%) Advisory services (scale)Stability, Reliance, Resilience01002003001L/1Y 3L/2Y 5L/3Y D02468101L/1Y 3L/2Y 5L/3Y DSalary level (%) Satisfaction level (scale)Equity2.2 animal production and the environment: e.g. carbon footprint29/04/20159livestock – environment• negative impacts – emission of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O) and ammonia– land degradation and deforestation– pollution of soils and water– biodiversity loss• positive impacts– extensive systems (low-input): landscape and biodiversity conservation– prevention/ regulation of environmental hazards (forest fires, erosion, desertification)– storage of carbon in grasslands (34%, forests 39%) different farming systems render different ecosystem services/ public goods29/04/2015101. Grazing or pastoral system:• Alpine mountains.• 1 lambing per ewe per year.• Free ranging.3. Industrial system or zero grazing:• Low altitude semi-arid conditions.• 5 lambings per ewe every 3 years.• Kept indoors all year round.2. Mixed sheep-cereal crop system: • Mid-altitude Mediterranean ranges and plateaus.• 3 lambings per ewe every 2 years.• Grazing daily with shepherd.SPAINFRANCECarbon footprint:3 contrasting sheep systems020406080100120140160180200Pig Chicken Beef Milk Eggskg CO2 eq/kg animal protein¿What about sheep?carbon footprint of different animal types29/04/201511¿where are GHG comming from?Off-farm feedsLand (on-farm)ManureProducts   ServicesAnimalsFeed basketExternal inputsCO2N2OCO2N2OCO2CH4CO2 CO2N2OCH4Cradle to farm gate Farm gate to graveCO2N2Ocontribution of CH4, CO2 and N2O in % to total emissions• CH4 is the major contributor in each SFS and remains almost steady across the systems.• N2O and CO2 contribution vary depending on the system.• Use of fossil fuels is responsible for differences of CO2 contribution.• Deposition of manure on pastures is related to high N2O emissions.57.09.533.556.720.822.659.429.111.5Zero grazingGrazing MixedCH4 CO2 N2O4 2 229/04/201512Multifunctional agriculturePrivate goodsAnimal productsPublic goods and servicesConservation of biodiversityMaintenance of cultural landscapePrevention of hazards: forest fires (Med.)Etc.19.519.5Zero grazing (5L/3Y)17.724.0Mixed (3L/2Y)13.925.9Grazing (1L/1Y)kg CO2-eq / kg LWkg CO2-eq / kg LWCorrectedNo allocation53.6 %Allocation100 %73.9 %GHG emissions of sheepSheepBeefDairySwinePoultryEdible Non EdibleHigh digestible Low digestibleWhat’s better?EMISSIONS PER FUNCTIONAL UNITMultipurpose use of livestock in less favoured areas of EUmitigation in feed: the options29/04/2015133. Ecosystem services Ecosystem servicesEcosystem services are the direct and indirect benefits people obtain from ecosystems1. Provisioning: products obtained from the ecosystem, i.e. food, timber, fiber, fresh water, etc. 2. Regulating: benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, i.e. regulation of climate, erosion prevention, water regulation, etc.3. Supporting: ecosystem services that are necessary for the maintenance of all other ecosystem services, i.e. primary production (photosynthesis), soil formation, nutrient cycling, water cycling, etc.4. Cultural: nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems, i.e. spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, recreation, aesthetic experience, etc.29/04/201514Ecosystem services & biodiversity…what is the role of Biodiversity?• For ecologists, provision of ecosystem services is directly related to biodiversity • Biodiversity underpins ecosystem integrity or ecosystem state • Increasing biodiversity also benefits the variety of ecosystem services available to societyDrivers of biodiversity loss in EuropeEEA, 2004. High Nature Value Farmland: characteristics, trends and policy challenges.  European Environmental Agency.Marginalization/ abandonment of HNVFIntensification/specializationof agricultureBiodiversity conservationProvision of public goodsHNVFsemi-naturalgrasslandgreaterbiodiversity index29/04/201515Ecosystem Services valuation• Different functional units• Different temporal and spatial scales• Different perceptions by society• No market price1. BIOPHYSICAL2. SOCIO-CULTURAL3. ECONOMIC3.1 Biophysical valuation: grazing and vegetation in Guara• Vegetation cover: trees, shrubs, herbs• Herbaceous: biomass, quality, species• Shrubs: biomass, speciesx1229/04/201516Evolution of shrub vegetation in Guara29/04/201517effect of grazing on landscape: current situationeffect of grazing on landscape: abandonment29/04/201518effect of grazing on landscape: optimal3.2 Socio-cultural valuation: views of farmers and other citizens29/04/201519farmers other citizensFood qualityBiodiversityForest firesLandscapeTotal economic value (TEV): sum of output values (the values generated in the current state of the ecosystem, e.g., food production, climate regulation and recreational value) as well as insurance values, now and in the future.3.3 Economic valuation: measuring public goods? 29/04/201520Total Economic Value (TEV)less tangible, more difficult to measure• do not involve direct or indirect use of the ecosystem service, but reflect the satisfaction that individuals derive from the knowledge they exist (e.g. enjoyment of a beautiful landscape)• related to moral, religious of aesthetic properties of individuals • markets do not existNon-use value• Choice modelling Individuals are asked to choose their preferred alternative among several hypothetical land uses. Each scenario of land use is described by a number of attributes (e.g. vegetation cover, landscape fragmentation, biodiversity index, human activities, etc.). Individuals make trade-offs between the levels of the attributes describing the different alternatives in a choice set. • Underlying rational decision processStated preference methods29/04/201521Liberalization scenarioCurrent scenarioTargeted support scenarioScenarios in GuaraChoice model for ES in Guara29/04/201522Economic value of agro-ecosystems in GuaraWillingness to Pay (WTP) (€ person-1 year-1) and composition of the Total Economic Value Current level of support45€ person-1 year-1Willingness to Pay (WTP) (€ person-1 year-1) for ecosystem services in different policy scenarios29/04/2015234.  Wrapping up!take-home messages1. animal production systems are not static, they evolve according to general drivers but also to family/ local circumstances2. sustainable agriculture ≠ env. friendly agriculture• environment• economics• social3. multiple trade-offs or compromises • e.g. economic vs. environmental• e.g. carbon footprint and ecosystem services (biodiversity, landscape)29/04/2015244. animal agriculture can be multifunctional (delivery of public goods or ecosystem services), but not all farming systems are (eg. ecosystem disservices or negative externalities)5. there is need to objectively value “non-market” functions of animal agriculture and integrate public goods into policytake-home messages6. to understand sustainability it is necessary a systems perspective: • multiple factors or dimensions• multiple interrelations• diverse spatial and temporal scales• multidisciplinary dynamic approaches7. uncertainty is hugetake-home messages29/04/201525stabilityuncertaintycontrol of the environment (physical & socio-economic)efficiencyproductivitychangeadaptationresiliencespecialization diversificationself-sufficiencyresearch focusdisciplinary holisticMuchas gracias!

Evaluación de la sostenibilidad y de los servicios de los ecosistemas de la agricultura de montaña

http://citarea.cita-aragon.es/citarea/bitstream/10532/2911/1/2015_097.pdf

Evaluación de la sostenibilidad y de los servicios de los ecosistemas de la agricultura de montaña

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

citaREA Repositorio Electrónico Agroalimentario