Agroecology, Farmer Livelihoods and Ecosystem
Services in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest
Spring 2016 course, travel over spring break
Abdon L Schmitt-Filho,
Joshua Farley et al.
Forest, mountains and family farmers
23% of SC’s Atlantic Forest left
intact, vs. 7% for country as
whole
Family farmers produce
87% of agricultural output
Atlantic Forest Biome
• endemism rates ranging from 30% in birds to 44% in plants
(Mittermeier 2005)
Atlantic Forest Biome
• Over 90% of the Atlantic Forest now gone
• This remnants are patchily distributed in 245,173
fragments, 83,4% of are smaller than 50 ha
• Global priority for biodiversity conservation, i.e., a
biodiversity hotspot
• Few tropical biodiversity hotspots are “hotter” than the
Atlantic Forest in terms of existing threats and conservation
value (Laurance 2009, Ribeiro 2011)
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)
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
 Area of Permanent Preservation (APP)



30 meters alongside streams, wetlands,
small rivers
50 meters alongside springs
Steeps slopes and hilltops
 Legal
Forest Reserve 20% of remaining
property (small holders can double count)
Typical farm
Economic Threshold, short term
 Small
family farms 87% of all properties
and 44% of the land in the SC
 Incomes declining relative to urban areas
 Restoration would leave many farms
nonviable
Economic Threshold, long term
 Catastrophic
flooding, infrastructure loss
 Contamination of rivers
 Extensive erosion
 etc., etc.
The Dilemma
Pasture , Agroecology and Livelihood Program
Three important policy goals in Brazil are:
• poverty alleviation
• economic growth
• forest conservation
At the national scale and with current agricultural
technologies, the goal of forest restoration is in direct
conflict with the goals of economic growth
and
(Farley
2012poverty
, Schmitt 2013)
alleviation.
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)
 National
government may follow suit
Agroecology as a Potential Solution

Reforesting APP and RL with high value native
species (e.g. acai) increases economic benefits
from native ecosystem


Non-native intercropping (e.g. coffee) allowed since
2008
Silvo-pastoral
rotational grazing
increases ES from
ag land
Agroecology in Santa Catarina:
Voisin rotational grazing

Economic benefits: fewer inputs, fewer
diseases, increased yields, lower costs




98% of farmers said initial investment is
generating desired returns or more.
70% of farmers repaid the initial investment in the
first year, and over 87% did so within two years.
85% claimed that the project improved their
quality of life.
Ecological benefits: reduced agrotoxins,
carbon sequestration, increased biodiversity,
decreased erosion
Agroforestry
 Complies
with forestry code
 Estimated IRR of 18% in Atlantic Forest
 Excellent initial results with açai (Euterpe
edulis)
 Farmers in SC study site willing to
implement if trees and extension provided
Next project phase
High Biodiversity Voisin Silvopastoralism
From family farmer livelihood to provision of Ecosystem services
Juçara palm - Euterpe edulis
Açai – Euterpe oleracea
High Biodiversity Voisin Silvopastoralism
High Biodiversity Voisin Silvopastoralism (Rotational Grazing)
Farmers Goals - Participatory Design –
• 20% of pasture areas covered with TREES
• extra income $$ --May not be enough
• native trees and bees ONLY
• Increase the provision of Ecosystem Services - Carbon +
Biodiversity + Water…
• Payment for Ecosystems services Program
High Biodiversity Voisin Silvopastoralism - When trade off is not enough!
SUN
N
W
E
S
50 islands ha - Nontimber forest productNTFPs
12% of pasture area
24-36% of pasture shaded
during summer
Obstacles to Agroecology
 Lack

of information
Technical skills (also major obstacle to
restoration)
 Lack
of extension
 Lack of markets for non-conventional
products

Little progress with $20 million grant in SP
 Interest
rates >40%/yr
Potential Solutions:
•
•
•
•
PES
Açai sales and exports
Agrotourism?
Microcredit
Payments for Ecosystem
Services

“a transfer of resources between social actors, which
aims to create incentives to align individual and/or
collective land use decisions with the social interest in
the management of natural resources” (Muradian et al., 2010, p.
1205)
Obstacles to PES
 Difficult
to measure impacts
 Difficult to ensure payments over long time
spans

Depends on political will more than market
forces
 Payments
for single service may be
inadequate, inefficient
 High transaction costs
 Solution: payments for agroecology RD&D
New Markets and Microcredit
 Design
for benefit corporation to market
açai juçara in US (starting with Vermont)

All profits fund expansion of agroforestry
systems
 Develop
business plan
 Understand exports from Brazil
 Develop marketing plan
New Markets and Microcredit
 Revenue
loaned to farmers
 Interest payments and payment rate
contingent upon profits
 Can initiate during course
Agrotourism and payments for biodiversity?
• Toucans
• Howlers
• Capybaras, etc.
Course outline
 Meet
weekly prior to Spring break to
design projects
 Projects




Develop methods for gathering baseline
ecological data
Gather and analyze baseline economic data
Develop business plan for açai juçara exports
Develop and implement micro-credit pilot
project
 Write
up projects on return