Combining different modelling approaches for a participative assessment of alternative agricultural systems at different scales. Sylvestre Delmotte
Combining different modelling approaches for a participative assessment of alternative agricultural systems at different scales .Delmotte S 1*, Lopez-Ridaura S1, Goulevant G1, Mouret JC1, Le Page C2, Chauvelon P3, Sandoz A3, Barbier JM1, Wery J4 1INRA, UMR Innovation, 2 place Pierre Viala 34070 Montpellier Cedex 2. Corresponding address :* firstname.lastname@example.org 2CIRAD, UPR Green, Campus International de Baillarguet, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France 3Fondation Sansouire, Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, F-13200 Arles, France 4SupAgro, UMR System, 2 place Pierre Viala, 34060 Montpellier Cedex 2, France
Introduction Participative Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Systems Multifunctionality of agriculture, importance of social, economic and environmental aspects. Evaluate alternatives systems and trade-offs Need for tools that allow PIMPAAS: Prospective (alternative systems and changing environment) Multiscale (different processes at different levels) Farm-regional (territory) scale Multicriteria assesment (different objectives) Participative (local knowledge, support for individual and collective decisions, negotiations)
Introduction La Camargue Small and well delimited region (160 000 ha) Several well identified actors (farmers, syndicate, cooperatives, natural parcs) Several constrasting objectives (agricultural production, wildlife conservation…) Concrete options for agricultural production (e.g. organic) Participative Integrated Assessment (PIA) of scenarios of future farming systems
1. Engagement of the local stakeholders (1/2) More than 20 individual meetings at the begining of the project Identification of actors, scales of analysis and objectivesApplication Scenarios: CAP reform: i.e. suppression of a rice coupled subsidy (2012) and decrease of direct payment. Pesticides reduction and OF development (national plan).
1. Engagement of the local stakeholders (2/2) Scales Indicators Farm Costs of production (€) Gross margin (€) Gross margin including subsidies (€)Application Total working time per year (h) Area organically managed (ha) Farm, sub region, region Amount of subsidies (€) Treatment Frequency Index (TFI) Area of each crop on organic and conventional (ha) Production of each crop on organic and conventional (t) Proportion of area organically managed Sub region, region Area of each crop Total value of agricultural productions (€) Proportion of irrigated area 3 Water used for irrigation (m ) Employment generating by agricultural activities (man year)
2. Data acquisition Definition of activities (1600) Quantification of activities
3. Application of three approaches for scenario building and assesment Development of a retrospective Land Use Change approach, discussion with local stakeholders Development of an agent-based model (IMPASIAS - Integrated and Multiscale Participative Assessment of3 approaches Scenarios and their Impacts on Agricultural Systems-) to formalize and evaluate scenarios with farmers during interactive simulation sessions, and discuss them with local stakeholders. Scenario definition with the local stakeholders and co- construction of a bio-economic model
3.1 LUC results Main messages: Different strategies to adapt to economic changes Identifying farm types more probable to convert to OF: livestock breeder and diversified cereal farmers Quantifying variations and trends of land use at field/farm scale Discussed with the stakeholders to make hypothesis on farmevolutions and think of farm adaptability
3.2 The IMPASIAS model Agent-based model for interactive simulation. Based on the dynamic choice by individual farmer of land use at farm scale.Interactive sessions in two steps: Decisions of land use (selection of the agricultural activities) Individual analysis of results at farm and regional scales3 sessions, 14 farmers of 8 types
3.2 Results of scenario related to CAP reformAt farm level: Diversified farms wont suffer much by CAP reform and could easily convert to OF. Farming systems based on rice production would suffer a decrease of gross margin. Need to diversify, but none of the strategy tested gave satisfactory result from the farmers’ point of view.At regional level: The suppression of specific payments could reduce the rice area nearly by half issues related to processing industries and irrigation water infrastructure maintenance.
3.3 Bio-Economic model resultsAt farm level: Adapting to the CAP reform means diversifying production unless a specific payment at 150€.ha-1 is maintained. Diversifying with sorghum appeared to be a good alternative for either gross margin maintenance and pesticide reductionAt territorial level: The pesticide used would decrease by 30% (ABM), however, with the same decrease in rice production, greater could reduction could be attained (BEM) with limited loss in regional value of agriculture Setting a new agri- environmental measure?
4. Combining the different approaches for PIMPAAS ? Projection using LUC allowed: Improving knowledge on farming system functioning Identifying probable spots for change Interactive simulation (ABM) with farmers allowed: Verifying and validating used data Mutual learning and reflection about adaptive strategies, Understanding land use decision making/constraints for farmers Upscaling and enhancing discussion with local stakeholders Simulations with local stakeholders and the BEM allowed: Formalizing stakeholders objectives Identifying conflicts and trade-offs.Discussion Improving knowledge on local policy impacts and ex-ante assessment of technical alternatives and policies
4. The need for a participative approach? For PIMPAAS, we need to : Follow an adaptive process (from engagement to collaboration) Engage stakeholders to get and legimate data Identify sharing/conflicting objectives Assume a neutral position Improve our common understanding of issues related to agricultureDiscussion Listen to stakeholders claims to collective discussions