Exploring drivers and levels of technology adoption for ecological intensification of pastoral systems in north Patagonia drylands

Highlights

• Ecological intensification relies on technology adoption, autonomy and diversification.

• Access to information channels and available labor influence technology adoption.

• Two main livelihood strategies found: entrepreneurial specialization vs. diversification.

• GHG emission exhibited both synergies and trade-offs.

• Ecological intensification pathways led to production-emission synergies.

Abstract

Although pastoral systems make a significant contribution to food security, they are also pointed out as being responsible for substantial environmental impact. Ecological intensification through process- rather than input-based technologies has been proposed as a means to achieve economic, environmental, and social win-win situations. We studied structural diversity, technology adoption, farmer´s strategies, and functional attributes (productivity, reproductive efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, diversification, and self-sufficiency) of pastoral systems in North Patagonia based on interviews of 70 farms with the following objectives: (a) to analyze farm structural characteristics as drivers of technology adoption for ecological intensification, (b) to describe their association with farmers´ livelihood strategies, and (c) to explore trade-offs and synergies among functional attributes. An ongoing ecological intensification was revealed based on the adoption of technologies towards animal´s welfare, survival, and overall systems´ efficiency, on-farm produced feed (self-sufficiency), and product diversification, promoting nutrient re-cycling within farm boundaries. Four farm types were differentiated by their access to information exchange channels, which together with labor characteristics determined technology adoption and farmers´ strategies. The main strategy of family farms that exhibited low to no hired labor, and intermediate to low access to information, was the diversification of products or incomes. Larger farms, with hired labor and access to information exchange channels, had an entrepreneurial strategy towards increasing production efficiencies. Enteric emission intensity per unit product and area exhibited significant trade-offs with meat production (Spearman ρ = 0.87; Y = 0.459 X + 0.352; R² = 0.95), and synergies with reproduction efficiency (Spearman ρ = 0.51; Y = −0.013 X + 1.612; R² = 0.28), respectively. Improving individual animal production instead of per unit area is encouraged to prevent overgrazing and land degradation, searching for win-win’s between emission mitigation and livestock production.

Introduction

Pastoral systems make significant contributions to food and nutrition security of rural families in harsh environments where other agricultural activities are not feasible. These systems transform non-assimilable natural resources for human beings into highly nutritive food (Gill et al., 2010, Glatzle, 2014, Mottet et al., 2017), and are often part of the cultural and religious heritage of rural people (FAO, 2009, Golluscio et al., 2010, Hoffmann, 2011). Beyond their products (i.e. food, fiber, and leather), well managed pastoral systems also contribute to nutrient cycling, soil fertility or seed dispersion (FAO, 2009, Peco et al., 2017), and reduce the vulnerability of rural households through diversification of incomes and accumulation of capital savings (Godde et al., 2017).

Sustainability of pastoral systems is often focused on reducing its environmental impacts. Pastoral systems are pointed out as being responsible for substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions particularly through enteric fermentation, overgrazing, and soil degradation among other environmental impacts (Truebswasser and Flintan, 2018, Tittonell et al., 2020a). Trades-off between environmental conservation and productivity have been often tackled, looking for synergies (Accatino et al., 2019). However, environmentally friendly production methods may not be sufficient to ensure sustainability in economic and social aspects (Darnhofer et al., 2010, Michelsen et al., 2016). The combination of economic, environmental, and social indicators such as greenhouse gas emission, animal productivity, feed self-sufficiency, and diversification of production and incomes have been proposed in different farming systems sustainability assessments (e.g., Ripoll-Bosch et al., 2014; FAO, 2019; Van der Linden et al., 2020), especially towards more sustainable intensification processes, which are at the forefront of food security discussions (Smith et al., 2017).

Intensification of livestock production in terms of productivity per area or animal unit are often proposed as a strategy to increase production and reduce the relative environmental impact of marketable outputs (Ripoll-Bosch et al., 2013, Jayasundara et al., 2019). For instance, intensification of grazing systems is generally associated with lower emission intensities per unit product (i.e. kg CO₂ eq per LW –live weight-) due to higher efficiencies when compared with less intensive systems (Modernel et al., 2013, Opio et al., 2013). However, intensification may also lead to environmental, economic and social trade-offs (Salmon et al., 2018), including unacceptable environmental risks (Soussana and Lemaire, 2014), reduced self-sufficiency through high dependence on external inputs, and low levels of diversity in assets and incomes (Robinson et al., 2015). Ecological intensification, on the other hand, has been proposed as a strategy to increase animal production and other ecosystem functions through process- rather than input-based technologies (Modernel et al., 2018, Paul et al., 2019). Process-based technologies aim to contribute to overall system efficiency without extra impacts (i.e. environmental or economical). However, input-based technologies such as strategic supplementation and animal health care may also contribute to ecological intensification by improving overall systems´ efficiencies (Modernel et al., 2016), although new trade-offs among ecological, social and economic aspects may also arise (Mahon et al., 2018).

Several factors influence intensification decisions and technology adoption at the farm level. Technology adoption is multi-causal and depends on structural characteristics, farmer´s strategies, and external factors such as extension systems, product prices, climatic events, or the perceived threat of livestock predation by wild carnivores (Zander et al., 2013, Gáspero et al., 2018, Balehegn et al., 2020). Moreover, livestock intensification decisions are also determined by the household resources and strategies to ensure sufficient food for families or to increase farm incomes (Udo et al., 2011, Godde et al., 2017). Distance to urban settlements, labor availability, farmers´ education, age and average incomes (Bernués and Herrero, 2008) may also affect technology adoption. Finally, access to technical assistance and to farmers associations and other collective initiatives may promote technology adoption (Birhanu et al., 2016, Manda et al., 2020), while the lack of evident economic benefits and cost of adoption may discourage it (Alemu et al., 2016).

In North Patagonia grasslands, extensive livestock production is the most important activity for rural family livelihoods. Animal production efficiency is still low, with a regional average marking rate of less than 60% in sheep and cattle, and around 80% in goats (Villagra et al., 2015). The main product is wool, which means that economic incomes are delivered only once a year, increasing dependency on a single product that has a variable international price. Locally adapted process- rather than input-based technologies are available (Villagra and Giraudo, 2010, Mueller, 2015), yet their adoption is not fully widespread (La Torraca, 2015). There is a need to better understand technology adoption drivers and the resulting trade-offs and synergies among environmental, economic, and social sustainability indicators in order to develop affordable and ecological intensification strategies for pastoral systems in North Patagonia.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to categorize the structural diversity of farms in Patagonia pastoral systems (cf. 3.1), and to relate them with the adoption of technologies for ecological intensification (cf. 3.2) and functional attributes as sustainable indicators (cf. 3.3). Our objective was to analyze farms structural characteristics as drivers of technology adoption, describe their association with farmers´ livelihood strategies, and explore trade-offs and synergies among sustainable indicators. We first analyzed and categorized the diversity of pastoral systems based on their structural characteristics in a sample of 70 farms from North Patagonia. Then, we studied the drivers of technology adoption by those farms, and assessed some functional attributes as sustainable indicators: productivity, reproductive efficiency, GHG emissions, diversification and self-sufficiency (or autonomy). We then used multicriteria analysis to identify tradeoffs and synergies among these indicators. Finally, we discussed the implications and the scope for an ecological, process-based intensification of pastoral systems to meet social, economic and environmental claims.