Integrating Agroecology with Payments for Ecosystem Services in Santa Catarina’s Atlantic Forest

  • Abdon Schmitt
  • Joshua Farley
  • Juan Alvez
  • Gisele Alarcon
  • Paola May Rebollar
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Ecological Economics book series (SEEC, volume 4)

Abstract

There are no longer acceptable trade-offs between agriculture and ecosystem services: Both are essential and at risk. Agroecology may be uniquely capable of providing both. However, there are real costs to promoting agroecology that someone must pay, but any payment scheme must recognize that many of the services provided as well as the resources required to provide them are both public goods. Payments to individual farmers do little to provide these services, especially if they are contingent upon provision. Public sector investments are required. Since the public goods provided by these investments cross political boundaries, payments for these investments should flow from those governments or collective institutions that benefit to those that will provide the services, supplementing resources invested by the latter.

Keywords

Ecosystem Service Public Good Carbon Sequestration Global Public Good Flood Regulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altieri, M. A. (2002). Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anido, R. N. M. (2002). Caracterização hidrológica em uma microbacia experimental visando identi­ficar indicadores de monitoramento ambiental (p. 69). Agriculture. Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar
  4. Arcova, F. C. S., Cicco, V., & Rocha, P. A. (2003). Precipitação efetiva e interceptação das chuvas por floresta de Mata Atlântica em uma microbacia experimental em Cunha. Revista Arvore, 27, 257–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Constanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R. E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N., Naeem, S., Paavola, J., Rayment, M., Rosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper, K. and Turner, R. K. (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297, 950–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barboza, R. S. C. (2007). aracterização das Bacias Aéreas e Avaliação da Chuva Oculta nos Contrafortes da Serra do Mar – RJ. Rio de Janeiro: UFRRJ.Google Scholar
  7. Batáry, P., Báldi, A., Kleijn, D., & Tscharntke, T. (2011). Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of agri-environmental management: A meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1894–1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bird, R. M., & Smart, M. (2002). Intergovernmental fiscal transfers: International lessons for developing countries. World Development, 30, 899–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bittencourt, M. C. (2007). Avaliação de serviços ambientais gerados por unidades de produção familiar participantes do programmea Proambiente no estado do Pará – Jaguariúna. Embrapa Meio Ambiente.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, T., & Balmford, A. (1996). Atlantic forest extinctions. Nature, 380, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campello, E. F., Silva, G. T. A., Nobrega, P. O., Vieira, A. L. M., Franco, A. A., & Resende, A. S. (2007). Sistemas Agroflorestais na Mata Atlântica: a experiência da Embrapa Agrobiologia (Circular Técnica 2). Seropédica.Google Scholar
  12. Cavelier, J., Solis, D., & Jaramilo, M. A. (1996). Fog interception in Montane forest across the central cordillera of Panamá. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 12, 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chichilnisky, G., & Heal, G. (Eds.). (2000). Environmental markets. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Clough, Y., Barkmann, J., Juhrbandt, J., Kessler, M., Wanger, T. C., Anshary, A., Buchori, D., Cicuzza, D., Darras, K., Putra, D. D., Erasmi, S., Pitopang, R., Schmidt, C., Schulze, C. H., Seidel, D., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Stenchly, K., Vidal, S., Weist, M., Wielgoss, A. C., & Tscharntke, T. (2011). Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 8311–8316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa, L. P., Leite, Y. L. R., Mendes, S. L., & Ditchfield, A. D. (2005). Mammal conservation in Brazil. Conservation Biology, 19, 672–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. da Silva, J. M. C., & Tabarelli, M. (2000). Tree species impoverishment and the future flora of the Atlantic forest of northeast Brazil. Nature, 404, 72–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daly, H., & Farley, J. (2010). Ecological economics: Principles and applications (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dantas, I. (2010). Brazil interest rates to consumers rise, credit jumps. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-29/brazil-interest-rates-to-consumers-rise-credit-jumps-update1-.html. Accessed Oct 2012.
  19. De Schutter, O. (2010). Report submitted by the special Rapporteur on the right to food. New York: United Nations Human Right Council.Google Scholar
  20. Defesa Civil Santa Catarina. (2010). Enchentes 2008. On-line: http://www.desastre.sc.gov.br/. Accessed Oct 2012.
  21. EMBRAPA (Ed.). (2006). Bovinocultura. Coeficientes técnicos, custos, rendimentos e rentabilidade. Sistemas de Produção, 4 - 2ª Edição. Embrapa Amazônia Oriental.Google Scholar
  22. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65, 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fadden, J. M. (2005). A Produção de açaí a partir do processamento dos frutos do palmiteiro (Euterpe edulis Martius) na Mata Atlântica. Agronomia. Florianópolis: UFSC.Google Scholar
  24. Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Faria, A., & Marques, J. (1999). O Desaparecimento de pequenos rios brasileiros. Ciência Hoje, 25, 56–61.Google Scholar
  26. Farley, J., & Costanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: From the local to the global. Ecological Economics, 69, 2060–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Farley, J., Schmitt F, A., Alvez, J. P., & Rebola, P. M. (2010a). The farmer’s viewpoint: Payments for ecosystem services and agroecologic pasture based dairy production. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 1, 490–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Farley, J., Aquino, A., Daniels, A., Moulaert, A., Lee, D., & Krause, A. (2010b). Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 2075–2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farley, J., Aquino, A., Daniels, A., Moulaert, A., Lee, D., & Krause, A. (2010c). Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 2075–2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Farley, J., Schmitt Filho, A., Alvez, J., & Ribeiro de Freitas, N., Jr. (2011). How valuing nature can transform agriculture. Solutions, 2, 64–73.Google Scholar
  31. FATMA. ( n.d.). Parque Estadual da Serra do Tabuleiro Fundacao do Meio Ambiente, Florianopolis, Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
  32. Ferraro, P. J., & Kiss, A. (2002). Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298, 1718–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 16, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Frank, B. (1995). Uma abordagem para o Gerenciamento Ambiental da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Itajaí, com ênfase no Problema Enchentes. Engenharia. Florianópolis: UFSC.Google Scholar
  35. Freitas, L. A. S. (2008). A Construção Participativa de Arranjos Silvipastoris em São Bonifácio – SC (p. 123). Zootechnology. Florianópolis: UFSC.Google Scholar
  36. Gliessman, S. R. (2000). Agroecology: Ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.Google Scholar
  37. Gliessman, S. (2007). Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food syste. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  38. Homma, A. K. O., Nogueira, O. L., Menezes, A. J. E. A., Carvalho, J. E. U., Nicoli, C. M. L., & Matos, G. B. (2006). Açaí: Novos Desafios e Tendências Amazônia: Ciencias & Desenvolvimento. Belém, 1, 7–33.Google Scholar
  39. IAASTD. (2008). Executive summary of the synthesis report of the international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (IAASTD). Available on http://www.agassessment.org. Available on http://www.agassessment.org. Accessed Oct 2012.
  40. IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. James, A., Gaston, K. J., & Balmford, A. (2001). Can we afford to conserve biodiversity? BioScience, 51, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jenkins, M., Scherr, S. J., & Inbar, M. (2004). Markets for biodiversity services: Potential roles and challenges. Environment, 46, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kemkes, R. J. (2008). Policy tool choice for ecosystem service provision: Payments and public information. Masters thesis, Community Development and Applied Economics. University of Vermont, Burlington.Google Scholar
  44. King, D. M., & Kuch, P. J. (2003). Will nutrient credit trading ever work? An assessment of supply and demand problems and institutional obstacles. Environmental Law Reporter, 33, 10352–10368.Google Scholar
  45. Kubiszewski, I., Farley, J., & Costanza, R. (2010). The production and allocation of information as a good that is enhanced with increased use. Ecological Economics, 69, 1344–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Landell-Mills, N., & Porras, I. T. (2002). Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  47. Laurance, W. F. (1999). Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biological Conservation, 91, 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lenzi, A. (2003). Desempenho animal e produção de forragem em dois sistemas de uso da pastagem: Pastejo Contínuo & Pastoreio Racional Voisin (p. 122). Zootechnology. Florianópolis: UFSC.Google Scholar
  49. Limburg, K. E., O’Neill, R. V., Costanza, R., & Farber, S. (2002). Complex systems and valuation. Ecological Economics, 41, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (2001). Island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Marten, G. G. (1988). Productivity, stability, sustainability, equitability and autonomy as properties for agroecosystem assessment. Agricultural Systems, 26, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. May, P., & Trovatto, C. (Eds.). (2008). Manual Agroflorestal para a Mata Atlântica. Brasília: Ministério de Desenvolvimento Agrário.Google Scholar
  54. May, P. H., Bohrer, C. B., Tanizaki, K., Dubois, J. C. L., Landi, M. P. M., Campagnani, S., Neto, S. N. O., & Vinha, V. G. d. (2005). Sistemas Agroflorestais e Reflorestamento para Captura de Carbono e Geração de Renda. CPDA-UFRRJ. On-line at http://www.ecoeco.org.br/conteudo/publicacoes/encontros/vi_en/mesa2/Sistemas_agroflorestais_e_Carbono.pdf. Accessed Oct 2012.
  55. Mea, M. E. A. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  56. Meister, K., & Salviati, V. (2009). O Investimento Privado e a Restauração da Mata Atlântica no Brasil. Revista Intertox de Toxicologia, Risco Ambiental e Sociedade, 2, 43–57.Google Scholar
  57. Melado, J. (2000). Manejo de Pastagem Ecológica – Um Conceito Para o Terceiro Milênio. Viçosa: Aprenda Fácil Editora.Google Scholar
  58. Melado, J. (2007). Pastagem Ecológica e serviços ambientais da pecuária sustentável. Revista Brasileria de Agroecologia, 2, 113–117.Google Scholar
  59. Metzger, J. P., Martensen, A. C., Dixo, M., Bernacci, L. C., Ribeiro, M. C., Teixeira, A. M. G., & Pardini, R. (2009). Time-lag in biological responses to landscape changes in a highly dynamic Atlantic forest region. Biological Conservation, 142, 1166–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Metzger, J. P. (2010). O Código Florestal tem base científica? Conservação e Natureza, 8, 92–99 (preface).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Metzger, J. P., Lewinsohn, T. M., Joly, C. A., Verdade, L. M., Martinelli, L. A., & Rodrigues, R. R. (2010). Brazilian law: Full speed in reverse? Science, 329, 276–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. (2011). In S. d. B. e. Florestas (Ed.), Relatório de Inspeçã:o Área atingida pela tragédia das chuvas: Região Serrana do Rio de Janeiro: Áreas de Preservação Permanente e Unidades de Conservação & Áreas de Risco: O que uma coisa tem a ver com a outra?. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.Google Scholar
  63. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 69, 1202–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Olson, M., Jr. (1969). The principle of “Fiscal Equivalence”: The division of responsibilities among different levels of government. The American Economic Review, 59, 479–487.Google Scholar
  65. Pacheco, P. (2009). Brasil lidera uso mundial de agrotóxicos. São Paulo: O Estadão de S. Paulo.Google Scholar
  66. Pagiola, S., Agostini, P., Gobbi, J., Haan, C. d., & Ibrahim, M. (2004). Paying for biodiversity conservation services in agricultural landscapes (Environment Department Paper No. 96). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  67. Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., & Landell-Mills, N. (Eds.). (2002). Selling forest environmental services. Market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  68. Pagiola, S., Ramírez, E., Gobbi, J., de Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., & Ruíz, J. P. (2007a). Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics, 64, 374–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pagiola, S., Ramirez, E., Gobbi, J., Dehaan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., & Ruiz, J. (2007b). Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua*. Ecological Economics, 64, 374–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pearce, D. (2007). Do we really care about biodiversity? Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pinheiro Machado, L. C. (2004). Pastoreio racional voisin: tecnologia agroecológica para o terceiro milênio. Porto Alegre: Cinco Continentes.Google Scholar
  72. Pretty, J. N., Noble, A. D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R. E., Vries, F. W. T. P., & Morison, J. I. L. (2005). Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science & Technology, 40, 1114–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ribon, R., Simon, J. E., & De Mattos, G. T. (2003). Bird extinctions in Atlantic forest fragments of the Viçosa region, southeastern Brazil. Conservation Biology, 17, 1827–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ring, I. (2008). Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 25, 485–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rodrigues, E. R., Cullen, L., Jr., Beltrame, T. P., Moscogliato, A. V., & Silva, I. C. (2007). Avaliação Econômica de Sistemas Agroflorestais Implantados para Recuperação de Reserva Legal no Pontal do Paranapanema, São Paulo. Revista Arvore, 31, 941–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Resolução CONAMA. Resolução nº 369 de 2006. On-line at: http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=489
  78. Sidle, R. C., & Ochiai, H. (2006). Landslides: Processes, prediction, and land use (Water resources monograph, Vol. 18, 312 pp). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.Google Scholar
  79. SOS Mata Atlantica. (2009). Divulgação do novo Atlas Mata Atlântica. On line at http://www.sosmatatlantica.org.br/index.phpsection=content&action=contentDetails&idContent=392. Accessed Oct 2012.
  80. Souto, L. E. (2009). Código (anti) ambiental de Santa Catarina. O Eco on-line: http://www.oeco.com.br/convidados/64-colunistas-convidados/21295-codigo-anti-ambiental-de-santa-catarina. Accessed Oct 2012.
  81. Tabarelli, M., Pinto, L. P., Silva, J. M. C., Hirota, M., & Bede, L. (2005). Challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Conservation Biology, 19, 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ten Kate, K. (2002). Global genetic resources: Science and the convention on biological diversity. Science, 295, 2371–2372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tilman, D., & Downing, J. A. (1994). Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature, 367, 363–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. UNDP-GEF. (1998). GEF operational strategy. New York: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
  85. UNFCCC. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved September, 25, 2011, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf#page=12.
  86. Vanacker, V., Blanckenburg, F., Govers, G., Molina, A., Poesen, J., Deckers, J., & Kubik, P. (2007). Restoring dense vegetation can slow mountain erosion to near natural benchmark levels. Geology, 35, 303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vanloqueren, G., & Baret, P. V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy, 38, 971–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Venter, O., Laurance, W. F., Iwamura, T., Wilson, K. A., Fuller, R. A., & Possingham, H. P. (2009). Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science, 326, 1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vieira, P. F., Barbosa, A. M., Assis, A. L. A. d. A., Prudêncio, J. M., Ribeiro, L. R., Pereira, M. L., & Gasparini, M. F. (2007). Diagnóstico Socioambiental Exploratório e Subsídios para a Definição de uma Estratégia de Desenvolvimento Territorial Sustentável no Município de Paulo Lopes. Florianopolis: UFSC.Google Scholar
  90. World Bank. (2005). Project appraisal document on a proposed grant from the global environment facility trust fund in the amount of US$7.75 million to the state of São Paulo for a ecosystem restoration of Riparian forests in São Paulo project. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  91. World Bank. (2007). World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programmes in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics, 65, 834–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdon Schmitt
    • 2
  • Joshua Farley
    • 1
  • Juan Alvez
    • 3
  • Gisele Alarcon
    • 2
  • Paola May Rebollar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Community Development and Applied EconomicsUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Centro de Ciencias AgrariasUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaFlorianopolisBrazil
  3. 3.Rubenstein School of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations