Socioeconomic and environmental trade-offs for multifunctional landscapes: rice-fish Bac Kan
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•2,259 views
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Socioeconomic and environmental trade-offs for multifunctional landscapes: rice-fish Bac Kan
Similar to Socioeconomic and environmental trade-offs for multifunctional landscapes: rice-fish Bac Kan (20)
More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF)
More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Socioeconomic and environmental trade-offs for multifunctional landscapes: rice-fish Bac Kan
- 1. Socioeconomic and environmental trade-offs for multifunctional landscapes: rice-fish Bac Kan Elisabeth Simelton In collaboration with: Dam Viet Bac, Ngo The An, Nguyen Thi Hoa Email: e.simelton@cgiar.org Funding: FORMAS Sweden Technical workshop on Methods and Experiences in Climate Change Research and Assessments in Fisheries and Aquaculture Hanoi Sep 6, 2013
- 2. Rice-fish culture RISKS STRENGTHS Food Security Fish + No significant rice yield loss Fish sells +10.000VND/kg Socioeconomic & environmental synergies Biological weed control Less fertiliser (NPK) Biological pest control Less fish disease Tastier fish meat than pond Sensitive to extreme events Cold spell (tilapia) Water stress (flood/storm, drought) Adaptation? New rice varieties Mechanisation More ponds less rice-fish Polluted water kills fish Theft Mitigation? Excess manure input? Overfertilisation/methane emissions? Higher labour requirement? Source: Focus Group Discussions 2012-13; Literature review
- 3. Rice-fish • Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHSFAO) • Autonomous adoption: widespread without Government/project support • Multi-functional system – economic diversification (WB) – diversification of environmental functions (MEA) • Climate-Smart Agriculture (FAO, CGIAR) – Food security & livelihood improvement – Adapted for climate change – Mitigation (sequestration/reduced emission) What are the barriers for adoption of rice-fish?
- 4. Outline • Study site, Data & methods • • • • • • 3 policies influencing rice fish (Bac Kan) Who does rice-fish? Why? Why not? Policy recommendations Research gaps Adoption barriers - 3 lessons learned Conclusions
- 5. Study site: Bac Kan province • Survey I: Longitudinal study n=23 • Focus group discussions n=12 – DISTRICTS: Na Ri, Ha Vi – METHOD: Participatory ranking • Survey II: Household survey n=285 Households: – DISTRICTS: Pac Nam, Ngan Son – METHOD: Trade-off : Pairwise correlation • Households types • • Mono-rice (MR) and rice-fish (RF) Food self-sufficient (FSS) – non selfsufficient (NSS) 40 km 30 km
- 6. High PAM (Reforestation programmes 327) 1980s- 1990s National Food Security Policy PES (Decree 99-2010) Low SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS Viet Nam: 3 policies influencing multifunctional land use & food security Low Source: HH Survey I High ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
- 7. Ecosystem Services Rating Ecosystem Services Farmers rate 5 6 Economic value 5 6 0.5 1 Clean water 0 2 Shade 0 1.5 Natural pest control 0 3.5 Resilience to extreme weather events 1 0 0.5 2 Soil water content 0 1 Prevent soil erosion 1 1 Biodiversity Regulating RF Food provision Provisioning MR 0.5 2 Landscape beauty 0.5 1.5 Fuel provision Enhance soil fertility Supporting Cultural Source: Focus group discussions 2013 (mixed gender, mixed RF/MR farmers)
- 8. Household types n=285 Rice Fish (RF-) Mono-rice (MR-) Tot Lúa không Cá ruộng Food SelfSufficient (-FSS) 53 160 213 Food Non-Self Sufficient (-NSS) 11 61 72 Total 64 221 Source: HH Survey II
- 9. 9 Non-self sufficient -- Self sufficient 8 Rice-fish 7 Farm contexts Mono rice hectare 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 RF - NSS MR - NSS MR - FSS RF - FSS Rice Area Upland Crop Intercrop Tree-Based Forest Plant Forest Natural Source: HH Survey II (n=285) • Food sufficiency is possible despite smaller total areas • Non-self sufficient HHs have large shares natural forest (no economic value), smaller forest plantation areas implications for participation in PES? • Food self-sufficiency is associated with land use, not total area
- 10. Paddy field characteristics RF - NSS MR - FSS 0.4 hectare 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Source: HH Survey II MR - NSS RF - FSS • Food self-sufficiency associated with paddy area, irrigated share (2 crops/year) - not total farm area • Mono-rice households have cash crop instead of fish MR -… • RF-NSS least RF - NSS irrigation, mechanisatio n, cash crop of all
- 11. High PAM (Reforestation programmes 327) 1980s- 1990s National Food Security Policy 2010 PES (Decree 99-2010) Low SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS Bac Kan: 3 policies influencing household land use & food security Low Source: HH Survey I n=23 High ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
- 12. Ecosystem Services Rating Farmers rate Ecosystem Services PES Decree 99 Potential X +++ 5 6 Economic value 5 6 0.5 1 Clean water 0 2 Shade 0 1.5 Natural pest control 0 3.5 Resilience to extreme weather events 1 0 0.5 2 Soil water content 0 1 Prevent soil erosion 1 1 X ++ Biodiversity Regulating RF Food provision Provisioning MR 0.5 2 X + Landscape beauty 0.5 1.5 X + Fuel provision Enhance soil fertility Supporting Cultural +++ + Source: Focus group discussions 2013 (mixed gender, mixed RF/MR farmers)
- 13. High PAM (Reforestation programmes 327) 1980s- 1990s National Food Security Policy PES (Decree 99-2010) Low SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS Recommendations for land use & food security policy Low Source: HH Survey I n=23 High ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
- 14. Rice-fish: 3 knowledge gaps • Adaptation: Reducing exposure to extreme events – Flood risk (storm) – Cold spell – alternatives to tilapia? • Food security: consequences of national rice food security targets on integrated systems – Hybrid rice More intensive agriculture less rice fish • Environmental Services: Linking PES to all land uses – – – – Mitigation: Nitrogen leaching? Methane emission? Clean water: Agriculture water pollutants Soil erosion: paddy fields are sedimentation traps Ecotourism
- 15. Lessons learned: 3 adoption principles multifunctional farming system • Additional component(s) add value, do not interfere with current land uses on the farm or land use policies • Economic and environmental risks and benefits are well known and rational to the farmer • Flexibility. The new system generates annual outputs and enables multiple possible outcomes
- 16. Conclusions • Rice fish is an important component of food self sufficient households – Provides food (quantity & quality) – Generates income • Rice-fish has socio-economic and biophysical synergies – Diversifies income and land use – Negotiable within (most) current land use policies – Potential PES for all land uses • Potential trade-offs – National food security policies (intensified paddy culture) – Mitigation - Uncertain GHG-emissions? – Adaptation - Uncertain under extreme events
- 17. Look at The Talking Toolkit for focus group discussions on adaptation http://worldagroforestry.org/regions/southeast_asia/ vietnam/products/tools/talking-toolkit Contact: Elisabeth Simelton E.SIMELTON@CGIAR.ORG
Editor's Notes
- 2. Purposes of the workshop- To synthesize theoretical basis and assessment methods for climate change research in the fisheries and aquaculture sector;- To exchange of experiences, knowledge, and results of assessment studies on climate change in fisheries and aquaculture sector in Vietnam;- To identify research gaps and priorities for climate change research in the fisheries aquaculture sector in the country.Despite the purpose of this workshop is climate change – I wish to make a wider definition of “climate-smart agriculture”
- 135 Poverty reduction programmeND 102/2010 Ho trogiong(succeeded several)
- POTENTIALSGREEN CIRCLE can improve in environmental value – (1) PES for AGRICULTURE FIELDS (reducing methane emissions through less inorganic agrochemicals e.g. clean water production; (2) RED CIRCLES– reforesting with multiple species, forest management with selective felling; allow agroforestry and non-timber products as reforestation BLACK CIRCLE – Food Security policy – upland small holder farmers could improve their livelihoods by enabling multi-functional paddy land uses. -------------------Example: VietnamThree key policies seem to have influenced the farmers in Bac Kan:National food security targets (SEDS - Socio-eco Dev Strategy 2011-2020 3.8 Mha paddy) Paddy fields have to be used for paddy rice or maize. Households can’t use paddy fields for other land uses that may be more profitable. High–input intensive monoculture rice is promoted.National protection targets Uplands must be reforested, sponsor may appear via PES. Alternative: high-input hybrid maize monoculture on slopes.Results: Little room for households to achieve economic diversification (mono-culture) or “diversification into higher value crops” (still hybrid grains).Looking at reforestation landscapes – little evidence that 7-year clear cutting cycles contributes to environmental upgrading; Decree 99 on forest-PES generates very little income (200k/ha/yr). Trade-offs between national level and household level food security policies, between economic and PAM: Reforestation policy: seeds/seedlings and rice 1980s-1990s National level: High economic: Aid (low economic cost). Average Environmental benefits: high increase in forest cover (poor quality) good imageRef: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/IDS/id21Land_7.pdfHousehold level: Pretty high economic: Many currently food secure households achieved food security during that time.Average Environmental benefits: many households maintain reforestation cycles automatically. Environmental benefits of such cycles are unsure.PES policy – few projects in actionNational level:Pretty low economic benefit: returns to province or national PES funds. In Bac Kan: IFAD – loan, so high risk.Uncertain Environmental benefits: Little monitoring and evaluation done, e.g. reduced sedimentation in waterHousehold level:Low economic benefit: household incomes from forestry remain low;max 200.000dong/ha = same as national forest protection subsidies; 20-50.000dong/acacia Uncertain environmental benefits: reforestation without motivation (can’t harvest from natural forests, or forests, i.e. not allowed to plant agroforestry). National Food Security Policy (rice/maize): National level:Pretty high economic benefit: national rice self-sufficiencyLow environmental benefit: mono-culture, no guidance on agrichemicals, overfertilisationHousehold level:Low economic benefit: households may be self sufficient in rice but not allowed to alter to higher value crops/non-rice land uses (that would increase incomes)Low environmental benefit: mono-culture & low agrobiodiversity, high-input agrichemicals From Hoan: REALU approaches (not REDD+): (1) Trees on farmland. Agroforestry, a "carbon rich" land use, to replace shifting cultivation area in the forest. You may know that in Bac Kan there are a lot of maize plot inside the forest (institutionally it is forest land). (REALU suggestion rather than REDD+). (2) Forest enrichment =Trees on bareland (deforested forestland), not tree plantation on currently forested land.
- Food securityAdaptationMitigation