Applying a participatory methodology to evaluate ecosystem services in the Pampa biome: lessons learned from the Tessa methodology in Uruguay
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v12n1.2021.38175Mots-clés :
Extensive livestock farming. Ways of life. Sociocultural perceptions. Native grasslands. Incentive-based policies. Conservation.Résumé
Identifying and measuring ecosystem services involving local stakeholders has been characterised as a novel approach in the literature. This article describes the methodology used in the participatory workshops, the lessons learned, and the specific results of applying the Tessa method. The methodology was piloted with 56 researchers and technicians, more than 22 institutions, and 54 livestock producers involved with the grassland conservation initiative, Alianza del Pastizal. Identified change agents with the most significant impact include the absence of a rural workforce, the lack of family succession, and weeding and overgrazing of grasslands. The primary ecosystem services identified included the production of fodder, meat/wool, wildlife forage, way of life/culture, and medicinal plants. The methodology presented here is replicable, capable of expansion to more groups, contributes to a better understanding, by the producers, of their problems and points to the need for the development of public incentive policies.
Téléchargements
Références
BÁEZ, M. Asociativismo de pequeños productores. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, 2005, 9p.
BAEZA, S.; PARUELO, J. M. Land use/land cover change (2000–2014) in the Rio de la Plata grasslands: an analysis based on MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens, v. 12, n. 381. DOI: 10.3390/rs12030381, 2020.
BALDI, G.; PARUELO, J. M. Land-use and land cover dynamics in South American Temperate grasslands. Ecol. Soc., v. 13, n. 2, p. 6, 2008.
BALMFORD, A. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature. Environmental and Resource Economic, v. 48, p. 161-175, 2011.
BERRETTA, E. J. et al. “Campos in Uruguay”. In: Grassland Ecophysiology and Grazing Ecology, Lemaire, G. et al. (Ed.). (Wallingford-Oxon: CAB Intern), p. 377-394. DOI: 10.1079/9780851994529.0377, 2000.
BHAGABATI, N. K. et al. Ecosystem services reinforce Sumatran tiger conservation in land use plans. Biol. Conserv., v. 169, p. 147-156, 2014.
CASTILLO, D. et al. What role do social actors play in the context of ecosystem services? A review in areas of ecology and conservation biology. Sustentabilidade em Debate, v. 10, n. 1, p. 116-131. Brasília-DF, 2019.
COMITÉ NACIONAL DE ESPECIES EXÓTICAS INVASORAS. Especies exóticas invasoras en el Uruguay. Montevideo: Unesco, 2014.
CORTELEZZI, A.; MONDELLI, M. Censo General Agropecuario 2011: interpretación de los principales resultados y cambios observados. Montevideo: Anuario OPYPA, p. 471-490, 2014.
CORTÉS-CAPANO, G. et al. Degradación y gestión sostenible del campo natural en el Uruguay: resultados de una evaluación participativa en el norte del país. Montevideo, FAO, CAF y MGAP, 2020.
DAW, T. et al. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to references toolkit for ecosystem service site-based assessment 5 disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation, v. 38, p. 370-379, 2011.
DÍAZ, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science, v. 370, n. 6.515, p. 411-413, 2020.
DÍAZ, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science, v. 359, n. 6.373, p. 270-72, 2018.
FAGERHOLM, N. et al. Perceived contributions of multifunctional landscapes to human well-being: evidence from 13 european sites. People and Nature, v. 2, n. 1, p. 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10067, 2020.
FORMOSO, D. et al. Degradación y gestión sostenible del campo natural en el Uruguay: resultados de una evaluación participativa en el sureste del país. Montevideo, FAO, CAF y MGAP, 2020.
GOROSÁBEL, A. et al. Insights for policy-based conservation strategies for the Rio de la Plata Grasslands through the IPBES framework. Biota Neotropica, v. 20 (suppl. 1), p. e20190902. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676- 0611-BN-2019-0902, 2020
GRIFFITH, G. E.; OMERNIK, J. M.; AZEVEDO, S. H. Ecoregions of Central and South America [GIS data]. U.S. EPA ORD NHEERL. Available in: http://ecologicalregions.info/htm/sa_eco.htm, 2011.
HANNAH, L.; CARR, J. L.; LANKERANI, A. Human disturbance and natural habitat: a biome level analysis of a global data set. Biodivers. Conserv., v. 4, n. 2, p. 128-155,1995.
HELLIWELL, J. et al. World Happiness Report 2021. Available in: https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2021/WHR+21.pdf.
IPCC. Climate Change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [BERGER, S.; CAUD, N.; CHEN, Y.; CONNORS, S. L.; GOLDFARB, L.; GOMIS, M. I.; HUANG, M.; LEITZELL, K.; LONNOY, E.; MASSON-DELMOTTE, V.;
MATTHEWS, J. B. R.; MAYCOCK, T. K.; PÉAN, C.; PIRANI, A.; WATERFIELD, T.; YELEKÇI, O.; YU, R.; ZHAI, P.; ZHOU, B. (Ed.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press, 2021.
LI, Y.; WESTLUND, H.; LIU, Y. Why some rural areas decline while some others not: an overview of rural evolution in the world. Journal of Rural Studies, n. 68, p. 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.03.003, 2019.
MACHÍN, M. Taita: una cosechadora de cepillo de campo natural. Revista Plan Agropecuario, Recursos Naturales, ed. 173, p. 54-55, 2019.
MARTÍN-LÓPEZ, B. et al. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic., n. 37, p. 220-228, 2014.
MEDINA, S. et al. Restauración de Servicios Ecosistémicos en base a la implantación de Pasturas Nativas en el Área Protegida de los Montes Del Queguay. Revista INIA, n. 56, p. 43-47, 2019.
MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a framework for assessment (Island Press), 2003.
MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT. Ecosystems and Human Well-being, p. 3. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2005.
MINISTERIO DE GANADERÍA, AGRICULTURA Y PESCA (MGAP). Resolución n.º 1349/012. Creación de la Mesa de Campo Natural. Available in: https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/institucional/normativa/resolucion-1349012-creacion-mesa-campo-natural, 2012.
MODERNEL, P. et al. Identification of beef production farms in the Pampas and Campos area that stand out in economic and environmental performance. Ecol. Indic., n. 89, p. 755-770. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.038, 2018.
NABINGER, C. et al. Produção animal em campo nativo: aplicações de resultados de pesquisa. In: PILLAR, V. P. et al. (Org.). Campos sulinos: conservação e uso sustentável da biodiversidade. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, p. 175-198, 2009.
NABINGER, C. et al. Servicios ecosistémicos de las praderas naturales: ¿es posible mejorarlos con más productividad?. Asociación Latinoamericana de Producción Animal, v. 19, n. 3-4, p. 27-34, 2010.
NISBET, E. K.; ZELENSKI, J. M.; MURPHY, S. A. Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, v. 12, n. 2, p. 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7, 2011.
OPYPA-MGAP. Características y resultados de la ganadería familiar en el Basalto y Sierra del Este. Línea de Base para la evaluación de impacto del proyecto GFCC, 2017.
OPYPA-MGAP. Situación y perspectivas de la cadena ovina. Anuario OPYPA. 2019. Available in: https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/sites/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/files/documentos/publicaciones/Situaci%C3%B3n%20y%20perspectiva%20de%20la%20cadena%20ovina.pdf.
PALACIOS, H. B. Análisis participativo de la oferta, amenazas y estrategias de conservación de los servicios ecosistémicos en la subcuenca “la Suiza” Chiapas, México, 2012.
PARERA, A.; PAULLIER, I.; WEYLAND, F. (Eds.). Índice de Contribución a la Conservación de Pastizales Naturales del Cone Sur (ICP). Una herramienta para incentivar a los productores rurales, 2014, 181p.
PARUELO, J. M. et al.The grasslands and steppes of Patagonia and the Rio de la Plata plains. Phys. Geogr. South Am., p. 232-248, 2007.
PEH, K. S.-H. et al. Toolkit for Ecosystem 25 Service Site-based Assessment, Cambridge Conservation Initiative, Cambridge, 2013.
PEH, K. S.-H. et al. Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (Tessa). Version 2.0 Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://tessa.tools, 2017.
PÉREZ ROCHA, J. El estado del campo natural en el Uruguay. Montevidéu. FAO, MVOTMA e MGAP. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0989es, 2020.
RAYMOND, C. M. et al. The farmer as a landscape steward: comparing local understandings of landscape stewardship, landscape values, and land management actions and land management actions. Ambio, v. 45, p. 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0694-0, 2016.
RESTREPO-OSORIO, D. L. Ranching in the Floodplain of the Queguay River in Northwestern Uruguay. (Doctoral dissertation) The University of Kansas, 2020.
SCHOSSLER, D. S. et al. Livestock farmers and researcher’s perceptions about ecosystem services provided by Rio de la Plata Grasslands. XXIV
INTERNATIONAL GRASSLAND CONGRESS, 2021.
SCHOSSLER, D. Identificação de Serviços Ecossistêmicos de Campos Naturais no Bioma Pampa e Valoração do estoque de carbono do solo utilizando a Metodologia Tessa (Tesis de Maestría), Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brasil, 113f., 2016.
SCHOSSLER, D. S. et al. Proyecto piloto de evaluación de servicios ecosistémicos en pastizales naturales en Entre Ríos, Argentina. In: VII CONGRESO NACIONAL SOBRE MANEJO DE PASTIZALES NATURALES X ENCUENTRO DE GANADEROS DEL PASTIZAL DEL CONO SUR VIRASORO. p. 91-91, 2016 (A).
SCHOSSLER, D. S.; SFORZA, L.; ANGARITA-MARTINEZ, I. A. La percepción social de investigadores y productores con relación a los servicios ecosistémicos de los pastizales naturales de la zona de Paraguarí, Paraguay. In: VII CONGRESO ARGENTINO DE PASTIZALES NATURALES VIRASORO. p. 92., 2016 (B).
TALLIS, H.; POLASKY, S. Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services as an Approach for Conservation and Natural: resource management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 1162, n. 1, p. 265-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04152.x 2009.
VIGLIZZO, E. F.; FRANK, F. C. Land-use options for Del Plata Basin in South America: tradeoffs analysis based on ecosystem service provision. Ecol. Econ., v. 57, p. 140-151. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.025, 2006.
WEYLAND, F.; BARRAL, M. P.; LATERRA, P. Assessing the relationship between ecosystem functions and services: importance of local ecological conditions. Ecol. Indic., v. 81, p. 201-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017. 05.062, 2017.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Versions
- 2022-01-18 (3)
- 2022-01-11 (2)
- 2021-12-28 (1)
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Sustainability in Debate 2021
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
SUSTAINABILITY IN DEBATE – Copyright Statement
The submission of original scientific work(s) by the authors, as the copyright holders of the text(s) sent to the journal, under the terms of Law 9.610/98, implies in the concession of copyrights of printed and/or digital publication to the Sustainability in Debate Journal of the article(s) approved for publication purposes, in a single issue of the journal. Furthermore, approved scientific work(s) will be released without any charge, or any kind of copyright reimbursement, through the journal’s website, for reading, printing and/or downloading of the text file, from the date of acceptance for publication purposes. Therefore, the authors, when submitting the article (s) to the journal, and gratuitous assignment of copyrights related to the submitted scientific work, are fully aware that they will not be remunerated for the publication of the article(s) in the journal.
The Sustainability in Debate Journal is licensed under Creative Commons License – Non-Commercial-No-Derivation Attribution (Derivative Work Ban) 3.0 Brazil, aiming at dissemination of scientific knowledge, as indicated on the journal's website, which allows the text to be shared, and be recognized in regards to its authorship and original publication in this journal.
Authors are allowed to sign additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the works published in the Sustainability in Debate Journal (for example, in a book chapter), provided that it is expressed the texts were originally published in this journal. Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their text online, following publication in Sustainability in Debate (e.g. in institutional repositories or their personal pages). The authors expressly agree to the terms of this Copyright Statement, which will be applied following the submission and publishing by this journal.