Cuarto Congreso Internacional de Servicios

Ecosistémicos en los Neotrópicos: de la inves-

tigación a la acción

Mar del Plata, 30 de septiembre al 3 de octubre 2015

EJE TEMÁTICO: Valoración Económica y Social

PARCERIAS PELA BIODIVERSIDADE: AN EXPERIENCE OF BIODIVER-

SITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES MANAGEMENT ON SMALL FARMS
IN THE SOUTH OF BRAZIL.

Zecchin, A. L. S. 1*; Guimarães, J. L. B.2

1
Sociedade de Pesquisa em Vida Selvagem e Educação Ambiental; 2 Fauna & Flora International;
* azecchin@spvs.org.br; Victorio Viezzer street 651, Curitiba-PR-Brazil. CEP 80810-340; tel: +55 4130944617

ABSTRACT
Una mala comprensión acerca de la importancia de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos
(BES) para la sostenibilidad agrícola es una realidad común en todo el mundo. Ante esta situación,
el proyeto "Parceria pela Biodiversidade", desarrollado en el sur de Brasil, trabaja para la creación
de un modelo de gestión de BES, capaz de conciliar el manejo de pequeñas fincas con la conserva-
ción de la biodiversidad. Materiales de orientación están en proceso de producción para los agricul-
tores, con el objetivo de orientar la adecuada gestión de la biodiversidad en la finca y también para
la participación de nuevas empresas de agro negocios.

KEY WORDS
farm management, biodiversity, ecosystem services, restoration, conservation farming

INTRODUCTION
A poor understanding of the importance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BES) to the sus-
tainability of agricultural systems is widespread all over the world, both amongst small and big
scale farmers. At a farm level, the cost of managing that dependence is not known but it is generally
perceived to be high; moreover, the benefits, specially the economic ones, are not clear. Therefore,
BES is not factored into farming and business operation plans and costs, and is treated as an exter-
nality.
Nevertheless, a body of evidence is building to demonstrate that agricultural systems are dependent
on biodiversity to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. The benefits to society, such as soil
fertility, soil retention, water regulation, natural pollination and pest magement are essential to
maintain profitable crop yields (FAO, 2006). 35% of global food production from plants benefits
from animal pollination. The value of this production ranges from $ 112 billion to $ 200 billion an-
nually (Grigg et al., 2009).
Natural habitats, including protected areas, play a vital role in regulating climate, water supply and
quality, soil structure and nutrient cycles, thus maintaining optimal environmental conditions for
crop growth. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are the natural capital of rural landscapes and
shall be conserved, since have a proven positive influence in agricultural production.
To address the lack of understanding of the costs, benefits, constraints and opportunities of BES
management on farms, the project has as main objectives: To identify an economically viable ap-
proach for small farmers to manage their properties in ways that help maintain and/or restore biodi-
versity and ecosystem services, by engaging agribusiness and other stakeholders to support the im-
plementation of this approach; to develop and disseminate an economically viable Biodiversity &
Ecosystem Services management model for South Brazil farms, which can both bring benefits for
biodiversity conservation and for agriculture sustainability.
Project is being developed in the Araucaria Moist Forest Ecoregion (Olson et al., 2001). This region
is very rich in terms of biodiversity, fact illustrated by the huge variety of vegetation and animals,
some of them endangered as trees such as Araucaria angustifolia (which dominate the forest land-
scapes) and Ocotea odorifera, birds such as Amazona vinacea and Dryocopus galeatus, and large
mammals such as Puma concolor and Alouatta guariba. Originally the Araucaria Forests occupied
20 million hectares, extending through southern Brazil, but currently is highly threatened, being
reduced to 3% of the original area.
Habitat fragmentation and the poor quality of the forest brings a significant risk to the maintenance
of ecosystem services sustaining agriculture and other economic activities in the south of Brazil.
Expansion of agriculture and silviculture are the biggest threats to the fragments of Araucaria for-
ests. Most of these forest fragments exist on land that is privately owned, mostly by smallholder
farmers, and for this reason this lands needs solutions of BES conservancy.

DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERIENCE
The Project Parcerias pela Biodiversidade, was created as a result of the findings of a biodiversity
risk and opportunity assessment (BROA) (BAT, 2006) carried-out in 2010 by the company Souza
Cruz in partnership with the Non Profit Organizations SPVS (Sociedade de Pesquisa em Vida Sel-
vagem e Educação Ambiental) and FFI (Fauna & Flora International). This assessment showed
some environmental issues that could be addressed by a better biodiversity management in southern
Brazil farms.
The project is developed in the municipality of Paula Freitas, south-central Paraná state, in partner-
ship with 17 farming families on small properties from family-based farming. The implementation
sites are mostly within the Jararaca river basin, a direct tributary of Iguaçu River catchment. These
properties have an average of 17 hectares, in which agriculture is the predominant land use (50%),
followed by pastures (20%), forestry (12%); and remaining native forest (18%).The properties par-
ticipating in the project are quite homogeneous in terms of land use and economic activities. Most
of them have tobacco as the main source of income, followed by soy bean and dairy cattle.
At the beginning of the project, in order to understand the perception of small farmers about biodi-
versity, a questionnaire was applied to a group of 100 farmers of Paula Freitas region. It was veri-
fied that biodiversity is a theme less important for the landowners than issues like increased income,
labour force, quality of roads, climate change and proper use of agrochemicals. However, this same
survey indicated that 96% of these same farmers recognized biodiversity as an important element
for their agricultural production.
Outreach for farmers about biodiversity and ecosystem services interventions (BES) was conducted
through lectures, field days, training and implementation of BES interventions. The ecosystem ser-
vices most targeted by the project in the development of interventions are: water flow regulation,
retention of sediments, nutrient cycling, pollination and pest control.
The BES interventions developed in this project were selected based on the potential of each prop-
erty and defined together with farmers to meet their practical needs, respecting their availability and
other farming activities. The project is currently developing 6 types of interventions at participating
properties: forest restoration in riparian zones; enrichment of degraded forests; fencing of water
courses (springs and rivers) threatened by livestock; management of invasive alien species; man-
agement of pollinators; use of inoculants in crops.
Once selected, the interventions are implemented on the properties and subsequently monitored
through indicators, based on the scientific literature, both by the project team, and by farmers. Be-
yond this, seeking to understand the cost- benefit relationship of these interventions, the project also
monitors the time and resources undertaken in each of them. This monitoring is essential, as part of
the economic feasibility study to develop a management model of biodiversity compatible with the
reality of small farmers.
ANALYSIS
Learned Lessons
-In general, the motivation from the farmers to develop any BES intervention in their properties is
related to the operational and regulatory risks. The farmers have awareness that the lack of water,
pollinators and soil fertility can affect the crop production. Moreover, the lack of legal environ-
mental compliance in the property is a risk to accessing farm loans, or incurring penalties or fees.
- Timing of interventions on the farm must be compatible with farming schedule. Main crops are
grown in the hot season, which is also the better season to develop BES interventions, especially
those that involve trees planting like restoration, forest enrichment and management of pollinators.
-Considering the lack of labour force commonly existing in properties of family-based farming, any
intervention that demands much time from farmers will have little success. To define interventions
is important, in agreement with farmer, choose preferably those interventions that demand less time
for implementation and for maintenance. In areas identified as having high level of resilience with a
good potential for self-regeneration, active restoration techniques should be replaced by fencing and
excluding livestock.
Economic viability of BES interventions:
One of the major gaps in many projects related to ecosystem services is quantification of the eco-
nomic benefits of interventions measured against associated costs. To fulfil this need, a "cost-
benefit" analysis is being developed in order to obtain estimates of the economic benefits to farmers
and the surrounding communities. Including materials and labour costs as monitored during the
implementation phase, the average costs of the BES interventions are provided in the table below:
Table: Cost related to the implementation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service (BES) Interven-
tions on 17 properties including labour and materials costs.
BES INTERVENTIONS COST (R$) COST (US$) UNIT

Fencing of water courses 8,000 – 10,000 2,660 – 3,330 1000 meters

Forest restoration in riparian 3,500 – 5,500 1,170 – 1,830 Hectare

zones

Enrichment of degraded forest 100 - 500 33 - 166 100 seedlings

Use of inoculants in crops 60 - 80 20-26 Hectare

Pollinator management 100 - 200 33 - 66 100 seedlings

Invasive alien species manage- 200 - 500 66 - 166 hours of work

ment

These costs can be combined depending on of the environmental liabilities. Noteworthy is the fact
these average values can vary from region to region, according the cost of available materials, envi-
ronment specificities, local costs of manpower, etc.
Using InVEST software for ecosystem services modelling (Sharp et al., 2014), the project was able
to obtain preliminary estimates of economic benefits derived from improvement of environmental
services provided by the project interventions. For example, forest restoration of all degraded ripar-
ian areas throughout the Jararaca basin would cost about R$ 1 million (US$ 330,000); on the other
hand the economic benefits arising from the retention of sediments would be more than R$ 2 mil-
lion / year (US$ 660,000 / year), these benefits resulting from reduction of water treatment costs
and dredging. The same kind of analysis will be applied to other ecosystem services for farming,
including nutrient retention and pollination.
To understand this cost benefit relationship is essential to support the development of a BES man-
agement model feasible to the small property's reality, which help the farmer reconcile biodiversity
conservation with productive agriculture.

The Next Steps:

With the knowledge acquired during the last three years about the development of BES interven-
tions inside small properties, the next step of this project is to develop a user-friendly guidance bro-
chure about Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Interventions in Agriculture, focusing in small
farmers in southern Brazil. The aim is to demonstrate the multiple benefits and connections of bio-
diversity with agricultural production, as well as guide the farmers in the implementation of inter-
ventions. Additionally, is been developed a “Business-Case” document, which aims to demonstrate
the effectiveness of BES interventions to increase the sustainability of the agricultural business,
indicating the economic viability and opportunities for agro-business companies who want to sup-
port farmers to adopt this approach in landscapes on which their businesses depend.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BAT 2006. The Biodiversity Risk and Opportunity Assessment (BROA) Handbook.
http://www.batbiodiversity.org. Accessed in 2015, March 31.
FAO 2006. World Agriculture, towards 2030/2050. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/es/. Accessed
in 2015, March 31
GRIGG, A., CULLEN, Z., FOXALL, J., AND STRUMPF, R. (2009) Linking shareholder and natural value.
Managing biodiversity and ecosystem services risk in companies with an agricultural supply chain. Fauna &
Flora International, UNEP, Finance Initiative and FGV
OLSON, D. M., DINERSTEIN, E., WIKRAMANAYAKE, E. D., BURGESS, N. D., POWELL, G. V. N.,
UNDERWOOD, E. C., D'AMICO, J. A., ITOUA, I., STRAND, H. E., MORRISON, J. C., LOUCKS, C. J.,
ALLNUTT, T. F., RICKETTS, T. H., KURA, Y., LAMOREUX, J. F., WETTENGEL, W. W., HEDAO, P.,
KASSEM, K. R. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience
51(11):933-938.
SHARP, R., TALLIS, H.T., RICKETTS, T., GUERRY, A.D., WOOD, S.A., CHAPLIN-KRAMER, R.,
NELSON, E., ENNAANAY, D., WOLNY, S., OLWERO, N., VIGERSTOL, K., PENNINGTON, D.,
MENDOZA, G., AUKEMA, J., FOSTER, J., FORREST, J., CAMERON, D., ARKEMA, K., LONSDORF,
E., KENNEDY, C., VERUTES, G., KIM, C.K., GUANNEL, G., PAPENFUS, M., TOFT, J., MARSIK, M.,
BERNHARDT, J., GRIFFIN, R., GLOWINSKI, K., CHAUMONT, N., PERELMAN, A., LACAYO, M.
MANDLE, L., HAMEL, P., AND VOGL, A.L. 2014. InVEST User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project,
Stanford.