IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i11p4788-d1408639.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Building a Restorative Agricultural Economy: Insights from a Case Study in Santa Catarina, Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Farley

    (Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
    Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlingon, VT 05405, USA)

  • Abdon Schmitt-Filho

    (Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlingon, VT 05405, USA
    Pós-Graduação em Agroecossistems, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, SC 88040, Brazil)

Abstract

Agriculture is the most important economic sector and simultaneously the greatest threat to the ecosystem functions on which all complex life depends. It is therefore a logical starting point for developing a restorative economy. We must develop and disseminate agroecosystems capable of providing food security for all, while simultaneously restoring vital ecosystem processes degraded by conventional agriculture. We review 25 years of transdisciplinary work towards this goal on an agroecology project in Santa Rosa de Lima, Santa Catarina, Brazil and distill some key lessons for like-minded efforts. We apply the methods of Participatory Action Research and Post Normal Science to integrate the knowledge, insights and goals of farmers, diverse scientists, agricultural extensionists, and policymakers to design high-biodiversity silvopastoral systems and multi-function riparian forests capable of improving farmer livelihoods, and propose policies to support their adoption by aligning the interests of farmers and society. We explain the science underlying our project and document resulting improvements in farmer livelihoods and ecosystem services. We then examine the socioeconomic obstacles to disseminating our innovations and policies that might overcome them and describe our pragmatic approaches to working with policymakers. We conclude that integrating natural sciences, socio-economic analysis and politics are all necessary yet insufficient to promote the large-scale adoption of restorative agriculture. We contend that building a restorative economy will also require a fundamental extension of humanity’s moral values to the rest of nature, and use evolutionary science to support our views. Rather than offering a recipe for successful projects, our take-home message is that developing a restorative agricultural economy in an ever-evolving system is a continuous participatory process with no endpoint.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Farley & Abdon Schmitt-Filho, 2024. "Building a Restorative Agricultural Economy: Insights from a Case Study in Santa Catarina, Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-22, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4788-:d:1408639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4788/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4788/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    3. Daly, Herman E., 1992. "Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 185-193, December.
    4. Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Sven Wunder & Paul J. Ferraro, 2010. "Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 254-274, Summer.
    5. Farley, Joshua & Schmitt, Abdon & Burke, Matthew & Farr, Marigo, 2015. "Extending market allocation to ecosystem services: Moral and practical implications on a full and unequal planet," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 244-252.
    6. Carlos A. Nobre, 2019. "To save Brazil’s rainforest, boost its science," Nature, Nature, vol. 574(7779), pages 455-455, October.
    7. Alston, Julian M. & Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Wyatt, T.J., 2000. "Research returns redux: a meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), pages 1-31.
    8. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2001. "Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
    9. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    10. Fuglie, Keith O. & Heisey, Paul W., 2007. "Economic Returns to Public Agricultural Research," Economic Brief 6388, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. Jack, B. Kelsey, 2009. "Upstream-downstream transactions and watershed externalities: Experimental evidence from Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1813-1824, April.
    12. Pagiola, Stefano & Ramirez, Elias & Gobbi, Jose & de Haan, Cees & Ibrahim, Muhammad & Murgueitio, Enrique & Ruiz, Juan Pablo, 2007. "Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 374-385, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Farley, Joshua & Schmitt, Abdon & Burke, Matthew & Farr, Marigo, 2015. "Extending market allocation to ecosystem services: Moral and practical implications on a full and unequal planet," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 244-252.
    2. Trevisan, A.C.D. & Schmitt-Filho, A.L. & Farley, J. & Fantini, A.C. & Longo, C., 2016. "Farmer perceptions, policy and reforestation in Santa Catarina, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 53-63.
    3. Kaczan, David J. & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, W.L. (Vic), 2019. "Forest conservation policy and motivational crowding: Experimental evidence from Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 444-453.
    4. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    5. Arriagada, Rodrigo & Villaseñor, Adrián & Rubiano, Eliana & Cotacachi, David & Morrison, Judith, 2018. "Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 116-127.
    6. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    7. Perrings, Charles, 2014. "Environment and development economics 20 years on," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 333-366, June.
    8. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Vásquez, William F., 2012. "The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 169-176.
    9. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    10. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    11. Peter Midmore, 2017. "The Science of Impact and the Impact of Agricultural Science," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 611-631, September.
    12. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Hoang, Long Phi & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A comparative study of transaction costs of payments for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 141-149.
    13. Giefer, Madeline M. & An, Li, 2022. "Divergent impacts of the grain to green program, landholdings, and demographic factors on livelihood diversification in rural China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    14. Midler, Estelle & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G. & Narloch, Ulf & Soto, José Luis, 2015. "Unraveling the effects of payments for ecosystem services on motivations for collective action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 394-405.
    15. Kaczan, David & Pfaff, Alexander & Rodriguez, Luz & Shapiro-Garza, Elizabeth, 2017. "Increasing the impact of collective incentives in payments for ecosystem services," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 48-67.
    16. Maldonado, Jorge H. & Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Henao-Henao, Juan P. & Bruner, Aaron, 2019. "Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Rasch, Sebastian & Wünscher, Tobias & Casasola, Francisco & Ibrahim, Muhammad & Storm, Hugo, 2021. "Permanence of PES and the role of social context in the Regional Integrated Silvo-pastoral Ecosystem Management Project in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    18. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    19. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ojea, Elena & Roux, Camille, 2013. "Payments for Water Ecosystem Services in Latin America: A literature review and conceptual model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 122-132.
    20. Cicelin Rakotomahazo & Jacqueline Razanoelisoa & Nirinarisoa Lantoasinoro Ranivoarivelo & Gildas Georges Boleslas Todinanahary & Eulalie Ranaivoson & Mara Edouard Remanevy & Lalao Aigrette Ravaoarinor, 2021. "Community Perceptions of a Payment for Ecosystem Services Project in Southwest Madagascar: A Preliminary Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4788-:d:1408639. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.