Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Learning Event No. 1, Session 1: Strassburg, ARDD2012 Rio

936 views

Published on

Presentation by Bernardo Strassburg, the International Institute for Sustainability, Brazil, at the 2012 Agriculture and Rural Development Day in Rio de Janiero, Learning Event No. 1, Session 1: ‘Mato Grosso: realising the land-sparing potential from increased agricultural productivity’.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Learning Event No. 1, Session 1: Strassburg, ARDD2012 Rio

  1. 1. Mato Grosso: realising the land-sparing potential from increased agricultural productivity Bernardo Baeta Neves Strassburg b.strassburg@iis-rio.org Instituto Internacional para Sustentabilidade Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  2. 2. Mato Grosso Context•Highest deforestation rates of theAmazon and Cerrado•40% of state natural cover converted•Strong projected increase of soybeanfor the next decade (up to 3.5 mi ha) 9,0 Soybean Area (mi ha) 8,5 8,0 Remaining Biome Deforested Area Total Area Area 7,5 Km2 % Km2 % Km2 % 7,0 Amazon 204 39 322 61 526 58 Cerrado 157 42 220 58 377 42 6,5 Total 361 40 542 60 903 100 6,0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
  3. 3. Increasing Cattle Ranching Productivity as main option toconciliate conservation and agricultural expansion Improved Use of Existing Lands: Meeting Demands and Sparing Nature in Brazil Strassburg, BBN; Latawiec, AE; Barioni, LG; Assad, E; Valentin, J; Porfirio dos Santos, V; Nobre, C. under review, Nature Climate Change •First estimate of the potential to increase productivity of Brazilian pasturelands; •Current Productivity = 32% carrying capacity •Increasing it to 49-51% would suffice to meet all projected land demands up to 2040; Current Productivity Potential Productivity Alocation in 2040
  4. 4. But…… will land sparing follow cattleranching intensification ?
  5. 5. Land Sparing vs. Rebound Effect Price S1•Increased Productivity S2 •More production per area •Higher returns per unit produced Demand*•The relative weight of these effects willdetermine the final impact of increasedproductivity Q1 Q2 Quantity * For producers in region under intervention Soybean in Mato Grosso: 1990 2000 Productivity (t/ha) 2.01 3.02 Production (mi t) 3.0 8.7 Area (mi ha) 1.5 2.9 Rebound Effect
  6. 6. So…… how to realise the potential forland sparing from increasedproductivity?
  7. 7. Associate incentives to increase productivity with conservation measuresChallenge Conciliate conservation and agriculture expansionComponents Conservation of Restoration of Improved Use of remaining forests Degraded Forests Agricultural lands Monitor and Control illegal strengthen the Increase productivity deforestation compliance with forest (Good practices) codeStrategies Apply market pressure Provide technical Increase area under against deforestation assiatance, credit and multiple uses: Crop- (soy moratorium, incentives Livestock, Agroforestry, sectoral agreements) Silvipastoral systems Create incentives for the conservation and Implement spatial sustainable management planning to prioritise of the forest areas
  8. 8. Associate incentives to increase productivity with land sparing“Land Neutral Agricultural Expansion”(LNAE*) mechanism •Incentives for cattle ranching intensification associated with the mitigation or compensation of agricultural expansion (soybean); “Land Neutral Ecological Restoration”(LNER*) mechanism •Incentives for cattle ranching intensification associated with ecological restoration;* Strassburg, B. (2012) – IIS Working Paper
  9. 9. The “Land Neutral Agricultural Expansion” Mechanism In-Farm Mitigation Consortium Compensation Multiple Uses Single Use+IntensificationBefore 1000 Heads 1000 Heads of Cattle 1000 Heads of Cattle 1000 Heads 1000 Heads 1500 HeadsAfter 1000 Heads in Crop- 1000 Soy 1500 Heads Livestock System Heads Soy
  10. 10. Take home messages•Land sparing does not necessarily follow increased productivity;•Quite often the opposite occurs, due to the “rebound effect”•But increased productivity carries the potential for land sparing,under some circumstances •Associated with increased costs of forest conversion •It is also possible to condition the incentives for increased productivity to activities that ensure land sparing;
  11. 11. Thank You Bernardo Baeta Neves Strassburg b.strassburg@iis-rio.orgInstituto Internacional para Sustentabilidade Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

×