Skip to main content

Partnering with cattle ranchers for forest landscape restoration

Ambio volume 49, pages 593–604 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Transforming Latin America’s extensive grazing systems is critical for forest landscape restoration (FLR) but conservation initiatives rarely make efforts to include cattle ranchers. Engaging ranchers requires understanding their perceptions about how improved management and conservation practices fit into their overall production strategy. To assess ranchers’ motivations and limitations for adopting conservation-friendly practices, I surveyed 191 ranchers and extension agents participating in a silvopastoral project in Colombia. I found that ranchers are integrating multiple practices they perceive as complementary for achieving their goals: practices aimed at improving productivity are motivated by utilitarian values, while practices targeting environmental degradation and climate change are driven by stewardship and identity values. Input costs and labor shortages currently limit the expansion of conservation-friendly practices, but in-kind support and small cash payments could potentially alleviate these barriers. Silvopastoral ranchers can be instrumental partners in FLR provided that initiatives are designed with their perspectives in mind.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Amézquita, M.C., E. Murgueitio, M.A. Ibrahim, and B. Ramírez. 2010. Carbon sequestration in pasture and silvopastoral systems compared with native forests in ecosystems of tropical America. Grassland Carbon Sequestration: Management, Policy and Economics 11: 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asner, G.P., A.J. Elmore, L.P. Olander, R.E. Martin, and A.T. Harris. 2004. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 29: 261–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayanlade, A., M. Radeny, and J.F. Morton. 2017. Comparing smallholder farmers’ perception of climate change with meteorological data: A case study from southwestern Nigeria. Weather and Climate Extremes 15: 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2016.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brain, R.G., M.E. Hostetler, and T.A. Irani. 2014. Why do cattle ranchers participate in conservation easement agreements? Key motivators in decision making. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38: 299–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D.M., F.A. Galindo, and E. Murgueitio. 2013. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proceeding of the Royal Society B: Biological Science 280: 20132025. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2025.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calle, A., F. Montagnini, and A. Zuluaga. 2009. Farmers’ perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindío, Colombia. Bois et forets des tropiques 300: 79–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calle, Z., E. Murgueitio, J. Chará, C.H. Molina, A.F. Zuluaga, and A. Calle. 2013. A strategy for scaling-up intensive silvopastoral systems in Colombia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 32: 677–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.817338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.M.A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould, N. Hannahs, et al. 2016. Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113: 1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.M.A., E. Anderson, M. Chapman, K. Jespersen, and P. Olmsted. 2017. Payments for ecosystem services: Rife with problems and potential—for transformation towards sustainability. Ecological Economics 140: 110–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clearfield, F., and B.T. Osgood. 1986. Sociological aspects of the adoption of conservation practices, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagang, A.B.K., and P.K.R. Nair. 2003. Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agroforestry Systems 59: 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMartino, S., F. Kondylis, and A. Zwager. 2017. Protecting the environment: For love or money? The role of motivation and incentives in shaping demand for Payments for Environmental Services programs. Public Finance Review 45: 68–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142115604352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elum, Z.A., D.M. Modise, and A. Marr. 2017. Farmer’s perception of climate change and responsive strategies in three selected provinces of South Africa. Climate Risk Management 16: 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., and E. Fehr. 2002. Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review 46: 687–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2006. Livestock report Subdirectorate of policies and support in electronic publishing. Rome: FAO. (in Spanish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, J.R., D. Knapp, V.J. Meretsky, C. Chancellor, and B.C. Fischer. 2011. Motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements. Conservation Biology 25: 827–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01686.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedegan, 2013. Analysis of the Colombian livestock inventory. Behavior and explanatory variables. Bogotá DC: Fedegan. (in Spanish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, G.E., H.E. Fassola, A.N. Pachas, L. Colcombet, S.M. Lacorte, O. Pérez, M. Renkow, S.T. Warren, et al. 2012. Perceptions of silvopasture systems among adopters in northeast Argentina. Agricultural Systems 105: 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbach, K., M. Lubell, and F.A.J.J. DeClerck. 2012. Payment for Ecosystem Services: The roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 156: 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garen, E.J., K. Saltonstall, M.S. Ashton, J.L. Slusser, S. Mathias, and J.S. Hall. 2011. The tree planting and protecting culture of cattle ranchers and small-scale agriculturalists in rural Panama: Opportunities for reforestation and land restoration. Forest Ecology and Management 261: 1684–1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.10.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, H.K., A.S. Ruesch, F. Achard, M.K. Clayton, P. Holmgren, N. Ramankutty, and J.A. Foley. 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 16732–16737. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910275107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, J., T.M. Aide, H.R. Grau, and N. Ramankutty. 2015. Cropland/pastureland dynamics and the slowdown of deforestation in Latin America. Environmental Research Letters 10: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner, R., and O. Stanley. 2013. More than money for conservation: Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31: 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner, R., L. Patterson, and O. Miller. 2009. Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agricultural Systems 99: 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2008.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, C.A., O. Komar, R.L. Chazdon, B.G. Ferguson, B. Finegan, D.M. Griffith, M. Martinez-Ramos, H. Morales, et al. 2008. Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot. Conservation Biology 22: 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00863.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, T.M. 2012. Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: Peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environmental Conservation 39: 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892912000045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, S.B. 1993. The logic of livestock and deforestation in Amazonia. BioScience 43: 687–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, J., and P. Sparks. 2008. Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN, and WRI. 2014. A guide to the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM): Assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities at the national or sub-national level. Edited by WRI and IUCN. Gland, Switzerland: Working paper (road-test edition), IUCN.

  • Kammin, L.A., P.D. Hubert, R.E. Warner, and P.C. Mankin. 2009. Private lands programs and lessons learned in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 973–979. https://doi.org/10.2193/2007-074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosoy, N., M. Martinez-Tuna, R. Muradian, and J. Martinez-Alier. 2007. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics 61: 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, D. 2014. Large-scale forest restoration. 1st ed. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Latawiec, A.E., B.B.N. Strassburg, P.H.S. Brancalion, R.R. Rodrigues, and T. Gardner. 2015. Creating space for large-scale restoration in tropical agricultural landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13: 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1890/140052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latawiec, A.E., B.B.N. Strassburg, D. Silva, H.N. Alves-Pinto, R. Feltran-Barbieri, A. Castro, A. Iribarrem, M.C. Rangel, et al. 2017. Improving land management in Brazil: A perspective from producers. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 240: 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.01.043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, A.M., T.K. Rudel, L.C. Schneider, M. McGroddy, D.V. Burbano, and C.F. Mena. 2015. The spontaneous emergence of silvo-pastoral landscapes in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Patterns and processes. Regional Environmental Change 15: 1421–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0699-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansourian, S., and D. Vallauri, ed. 2005. Forest restoration in landscapes: Beyond planting trees. Springer.

  • Mcadam, J.H., A.R. Sibbald, Z. Teklehaimanot, and W.R. Eason. 2007. Developing silvopastoral systems and their effects on diversity of fauna. Agroforestry Systems 70: 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10457-007-9047-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyfroidt, P., T.K. Rudel, and E.F. Lambin. 2010. Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 20917–20922.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murgueitio, E., and M. Ibrahim. 2008. Cattle ranching and the environment in Latin America. In Cattle ranching for the future: Research for development, ed. E Murgueitio, C. Cuartas, and J. Naranjo, 19–39. Cali, Colombia: CIPAV, Fundación.

  • Murgueitio, E., Z. Calle, F. Uribe, A. Calle, and B. Solorio. 2011. Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management 261: 1654–1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.09.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola, S., and A. R. Rios. 2013. Evaluation of the impact of Payments for Environmental Services on land use change in Quindío, Colombia. PES Learning Papers. Washington DC: World Bank.

  • Pattanayak, S.K., S. Wunder, and P.J. Ferraro. 2010. Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4: 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/req006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramankutty, N., A.T. Evan, C. Monfreda, and J.A. Foley. 2008. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002952.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorice, M.G., J.R. Conner, U.P. Kreuter, and R.N. Wilkins. 2012. Centrality of the ranching lifestyle and attitudes toward a voluntary incentive program to protect endangered species. Rangeland Ecology & Management 65: 144–152. https://doi.org/10.2111/rem-d-10-00144.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, and C. De Haan. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, M.J., and K.J. Coleman. 2015. The multidimensionality of trust: Applications in collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 28: 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strassburg, B.B.N., A.E. Latawiec, L.G. Barioni, C.A. Nobre, V.P. da Silva, J.F. Valentim, M. Vianna, and E.D. Assad. 2014. When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change 28: 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, E. 2016. What factors influence the effectiveness of financial incentives on long-term natural resource management practice change? Evidence Base. https://doi.org/10.4225/50/57c4e802072ec.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Oosten, C. 2013. Restoring landscapes-governing place: A learning approach to Forest Landscape Restoration. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 32: 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.818551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatn, A. 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 1245–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove, D.S., and J. Lee. 2004. Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: lessons learned from three new programs. Conservation Biology 18: 639–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to all the ranchers and extension agents who participated in this study. I also thank Karen Holl, Josie Lesage, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback to improve this manuscript. This research was supported by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the University of California’s Research and Innovation Fellowship for Agriculture (RIFA) Fellowship. Logistical support was provided by CIPAV and Proyecto Ganadería Colombiana Sostenible.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Environmental Studies Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High St, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA

    Alicia Calle

Authors
  1. Alicia Calle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alicia Calle.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1541 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calle, A. Partnering with cattle ranchers for forest landscape restoration. Ambio 49, 593–604 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01224-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01224-8

Keywords

  • Climate change
  • Conservation-friendly agriculture
  • Extension agents
  • Forest landscape restoration (FLR)
  • Payments for ecosystem services
  • Silvopastoral systems