Successfully reported this slideshow.

The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for agriculture and food

4

Share

Upcoming SlideShare
CIFOR's REDD+ research
CIFOR's REDD+ research
Loading in …3
×
1 of 18

More Related Content

You Might Also Like

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for agriculture and food

  1. 1. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food Alexander Mueller, TEEBAgFood Study Lead
  2. 2. TEEBAgFood Alexander Mueller, TEEBAgFood Study Lead
  3. 3. The TEEBAgFood study is designed to provide • a comprehensive economic evaluation of the ‘eco-agri-food systems’ complex, and • demonstrate that the economic environment in which farmers operate is distorted by significant externalities, both negative and positive, and • a lack of awareness of dependency on natural and social capital
  4. 4. ‘The Good’ – some examples+ Agriculture employs 1 in 3 people of the world’s economically active labour force, or about 1.3 billion people. For the 70 per cent of the world's poor living in rural areas, agriculture is the main source of income and employment. + Smallholder farms (i.e. less than 2 hectares) represent over 475 million of the world’s 570 million farms and, in much of the developing world, they produce over 80 per cent of the food consumed. + Food production systems produce approximately 2,800 calories per person per day which is enough to feed the world population today.
  5. 5. - Eighty per cent of new agricultural lands have replaced tropical forests since the 1980s, a trend resulting in significant biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. - Crop and livestock farming produce between five and six billion tons of CO2-equivalent in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions each year, the agricultural sector is still expanding. - The agricultural sector utilizes 70 per cent of the water resources we withdraw from rivers, lakes and aquifers, raising serious concerns in terms of sustainability and security. - Still 825 Mill. people are hungry. ‘The Bad’ – some examples
  6. 6. The visible and invisible flows of agricultural production
  7. 7. The visible and invisible flows of agricultural production
  8. 8. The visible and invisible flows of agricultural production
  9. 9. The visible and invisible flows of agricultural production
  10. 10. The visible and invisible flows of agricultural production
  11. 11. The visible and invisible flows of agricultural production
  12. 12. Eco-agri-food systems complex – impacts and dependencies
  13. 13. TEEB – three different levels of action: 1. Recognizing value – identifying the wide range of benefits in ecosystems, landscapes and biodiversity, such as provisioning, regulating, habitat/supporting and cultural services 2. Demonstrating value – using economic tools and methods to make nature’s services economically visible in order to support decision-makers wishing to assess the full costs and benefits of land-use change 3. Capturing value – incorporating ecosystem and biodiversity benefits into decision-making through incentives and price signals
  14. 14. Feeder Studies
  15. 15. • The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) includes intermittent flooding as part of the production package. • SRI advises transplanting of young (eight to ten days old) single rice seedlings, with care and spacing, and applying intermittent irrigation and drainage to maintain soil aeration. • In addition, the use of a mechanical rotary hoe or weeder to aerate the soil and control weeds is encouraged. Rice Study Conventional vs SRI production
  16. 16. 801 2302 1124 1099 626 2422 1692 1422 Coventional SRI Increasing rice yields vs Reducing water consumption
  17. 17. Increasing rice yields vs Reducing water consumption: switching to SRI Senegal – Society would save about US$ 11 million in water consumption related health and environmental costs. – At the same time, the rice producer community would gain a total of US$17 million through yield increases – a clear synergy.
  18. 18. is supported by

Editor's Notes

  • The schema presents the study´s framework, outlining the processes and relationships that characterize eco-agri-food systems. An important element of this framework are the positive and negative externalities which will be consider to be ‘material’ to the discussion. While this schematic forms the basis for the structure of the TEEBAgFood study overall, it is more specifically intended for TEEBAF Foundations and its structure/wireframe.
    Ecosystems and agricultural & food systems are typically evaluated in isolation from one another, despite their many and significant links. However, ecosystems are the ecological home in which crop and livestock systems thrive and produce food for humans, and in turn agricultural practices, food production, distribution and consumption impose several unquantified externalities on ecosystem health.
    The draft wireframe for the Foundations report is based on the need to characterize the linkages between the three main components of this nexus, i.e. (i) ‘human (economic and social) systems’ (ii) ‘agriculture and food systems’, and (iii) ‘ecosystems and biodiversity’.
    Science and technology provide a number of inputs to ‘agriculture and food systems’.
    ‘Labor’ is a factor of production but might also include more broadly ‘human capital’, i.e. human knowledge of agro-ecological processes (e.g. composting, crop livestock integration).
    There are positive outputs from ‘agriculture and food systems’. Some of these are visible and generally marketed (such as ‘food’ and ‘raw materials’.) In other cases there are positive impacts that are invisible (or less visible).
    There are also negative externalities from ‘agriculture and food systems’. Some affect human welfare directly, such as health impacts arising from agro-chemicals.
    The final element of the schematic is the inputs provided by ‘ecosystems and biodiversity’ to ‘agriculture and food systems’. The agricultural sector is and always has been more intertwined with ecosystems (and dependent on their provisioning of services) than most other industrial sectors.
    <number>
  • The schema presents the study´s framework, outlining the processes and relationships that characterize eco-agri-food systems. An important element of this framework are the positive and negative externalities which will be consider to be ‘material’ to the discussion. While this schematic forms the basis for the structure of the TEEBAgFood study overall, it is more specifically intended for TEEBAF Foundations and its structure/wireframe.
    Ecosystems and agricultural & food systems are typically evaluated in isolation from one another, despite their many and significant links. However, ecosystems are the ecological home in which crop and livestock systems thrive and produce food for humans, and in turn agricultural practices, food production, distribution and consumption impose several unquantified externalities on ecosystem health.
    The draft wireframe for the Foundations report is based on the need to characterize the linkages between the three main components of this nexus, i.e. (i) ‘human (economic and social) systems’ (ii) ‘agriculture and food systems’, and (iii) ‘ecosystems and biodiversity’.
    Science and technology provide a number of inputs to ‘agriculture and food systems’.
    ‘Labor’ is a factor of production but might also include more broadly ‘human capital’, i.e. human knowledge of agro-ecological processes (e.g. composting, crop livestock integration).
    There are positive outputs from ‘agriculture and food systems’. Some of these are visible and generally marketed (such as ‘food’ and ‘raw materials’.) In other cases there are positive impacts that are invisible (or less visible).
    There are also negative externalities from ‘agriculture and food systems’. Some affect human welfare directly, such as health impacts arising from agro-chemicals.
    The final element of the schematic is the inputs provided by ‘ecosystems and biodiversity’ to ‘agriculture and food systems’. The agricultural sector is and always has been more intertwined with ecosystems (and dependent on their provisioning of services) than most other industrial sectors.
    <number>
  • ×