Above-ground biodiversity and returns to labour
“Best bet” Land-use Systems
Country reports
Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn in Brazil
Tradeoffs Between Objectives
Unique id: IDATAFXB
Source file: D:\Projects\ASB\ASB Country and Thematic reports\Brazil country report\ASB Brazil Summary Report.xml
Authors: S. Vosti, C. L. Carpentier, J. Witcover, . Carvalho dos Santos, E. Muñoz Braz, J. Ferreira Valentim, S. J. de Magalhães de Oliveira, C. Palm, F. de Souza Moreira, A. Cattaneo, A. Gillison, A. Mansur Mendes, V. Rodrigues, T. C. de Araújo Gomes, M. V. Neves d’Oliveira, E. do Amaral, S. Fujisaka, C. Castilla, T. Tomich, D. Bignell, D. Gonçalves Cordeiro, A. Hermes Vieira, R.S. Correira da Costa, M. Faminow, M. Locatelli, M. Swift, S. Weise, M. van Noordwijk, N. Sampaio, I. L. Franke, H. J. Borges de Araujo, L. M. Rossi, E. Barros, B. Feigl, S.P. Huang, J. Cares, C. Pinho de Sá, . Carneiro, P. Woomer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence from the study area suggests that LUS that increase the returns to labour—one measure of agricultural intensification—appear to be at odds with plant biodiversity.[1] The systems harbouring the most biodiversity (the fallow phase of the annual crop/fallow cycle, and forests) do not include any of the more intensive systems. Indeed, these LUS yield lower returns to labour than simply participating in the (imperfect) hired labour market (see wage reference line in Figure 12). They are therefore unlikely to have a long-term future unless returns to labour can be increased. What is more, among the systems for which biodiversity measures were made, those that score highest in terms of returns to labour, the coffee-based systems, have the lowest biodiversity. The traditional pasture system (where weed invasions can mean higher biodiversity) scored better than the perennial systems. Thus, while replacing traditional pastures with coffee-based systems (as is happening in some parts of Rondônia) will help farmers’ incomes, plant biodiversity is likely to suffer.
Figure 12 Tradeoffs between LUS: plant biodiversity versus returns to labour
Notes:
1. All prices in R$ in December 1996
(US$1 = R$1.04).
2. AC and RO systems evaluated using
prices and production systems relevant for Pedro Peixoto (
3. Returns do not take into account
known difficulties in marketing.
4. The vertical ‘Wage’ line represents
the wage for daily hired labour during the study period.
5. Species/modi ratio measurements are taken for the land cover of systems in a stable state; for the annual crop/fallow system, the measurement presented represents the fallow phase.
Source: ASB field data, 1994-97