Silvopasture and Riparian Agroforestry in Santa Catarina:

An Alternative Approach to Ecosytem Services

Ben Dube University of Vermont

Abdon Schmidt-Filho Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

Josh Farley University of Vermont

Alfredo Fantini Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

(And Many others….

20,000 species of plants, 263 mammals, 936

birds, 306 reptiles and 475 amphibians

(Mittermeier 2005, Ribeiro 2011)

Endemism approx. >%30 (Mittermeier 2005)

100 million people.

The Atlantic Forest

• 85% deforested.

• >50% remaining forest in fragments of <100 ha.

• Forest cover of 30% likely needed to prevent massive extinctions and loss of resilience.(Banks-Leite et al., 2014)

• A closing window of opportunity to act.

Santa Catarina – family farmers and livelihoods

• 88 % own land

• 87% of agricultural output, 44% of land

• 90% of rural population

• Tenuous hold on the “global middle

class.”

• Rural-urban migration important issue.

• “Outlaw Farmers”: not in compliance w/

Brazilian Forest Code.

The choice between’s : “larger farms or larger favelas.”-Luiz Henrique da Silveira

Is there a way out?

Santa Rosa de Lima

Study Site

Stage 1: Voisin Rotational Grazing (Management Intensive Grazing).

From 0 to statewide program (EPAGRI) in 15 years.

Farmer reports:• 75% increase in stocking rates.• 28% increase in milk/cow• Over 100% increase in milk

yield and revenue.• Alvez, et al 2012

Detailed Farm Finance Surveys:• 60% higher income/ha and

profit/ha compared with non-Vosin Farmers.

• Brasiliero, et al forthcoming

Voisin Rotational Grazing

Traditional Continuous Grazing

VoisinContinuous

Stage 2: Hi-Biodiversity Silvopastoral Systems

• Nucleation system

• Provide Shade and windbreaks

• Euterpe edulis (juçai fruit), Mimosa scabrella (bracatinga: nitrogen fixation, timber, honey), other NTFPs, charcoal trees, etc.

• Bananas (the non-native exception)

• Wild bees?

• >60 farmers signed up for pilot.

Stage 3: Riparian Agroforestry, HBSPS and new approaches to Ecosystem Services

• Goal is to comply with and exceed the forest code using agroforestry systems with native species.

• Most farmers feel they cannot comply with forest code.

• Biodiversity conservation (habitat matrix) and watershed services.

• Working with Secretariat of Sustainable Development on ecosystem services scheme in collaboration with farmers

Hypothesis:

• Research, extension, support and cost-sharing for agro-forestry (a co-investment paradigm) can restore ecosystem functions more cost-effectively and reliably than Commodification of Ecosystem Services.

Rationale

Problems with CES

• Political and Economic Risks (from local to global)

• High transaction costs• Hard to fund small family farms.

• Opportunity costs fluctuate.

• May erode social economy• “Crowding out” altruism.

Benefits of Co-investment in Agro-Forestry

• One-time financial outlay• Repayment could allow system to

self-support.

• Lower transaction costs• Embedded in existing co-op /

extensionist relationships.

• Value of products fluctuates with opportunity costs.

• May promote the social economy. • Reciprocity over quid pro quo.

Design Parameters:

• Proportion of public vs farmer investment.• Loans? Free trees? Planting assistance?

• Proportion of commodity revenue shared with government.• Based on initial assistance? “loan repayment”

• Based on system revenue? A “tax” or “in-kind contribution”

• A mix?

• None?

• Proportion of commodity vs ecosystem service flows.• Ex: % native trees. % non commodity trees.

Economic Qualities

Positive Factors

• Shade for cows in summer.

• Higher quality forage in summer.

• High quality browse as supplemental forage.

• Diversified income streams.

• Income added with low labor costs and low external inputs.

Negatives/Risks

• Shade impacts on winter forage growth.

• Long wait until system matures (time value of $).

• New commercial crop.

• Large up front costs.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

R$

per

ha

Milk Revenue (Current) Bannana Revenue (2nd year)

E.E. Revenue (7th year) Cost of Trees & Fencing(Milk Revenue from Brasiliero et al, forthcoming)

Financial Estimates

Potential Change in Milk Production

SPS coinvestment Conservation PES

• R$1500-2000/ha/yrindefinitely. (50-70% of avg profit).

• Long term, much greater ES.

• R$7,400/ha once.

• Fast ES provision

• Long-term revenue positive for local gov (repayments & economic activity.)

Multifunctional Riparian Forest Coinvestment

• R$11,600/ha once• Fast ES provision• Regulatory compliance

for farms• Meets farm opportunity

costs

Some Questions for the Future

• How will systems actually evolve?• Ongoing monitoring and research investigation.

• How do farmers view the co-investment?• Can we activate financial and intrinsic motivations?

• Quantifying and Valuating Ecosystem Services

• Can/should international carbon markets help fund projects for local ecosystem services?

Thank you!