Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
operate less in parallel and depend more
strongly on the cultural, social and eco-
nomic context. In the short term, maintain-
ing soil fertility may not be the primary
concern and may even be jeopardized, as
securing yields and maximizing income
may have a higher direct priority ( Table 4.2 ) .
Making decisions based on achieving long-
term, stable revenues requires surplus/cap-
ital, as long-term benefits do not pay off im-
mediately. If there is no buffer to protect
short-term benefits, long-term actions are
less likely to succeed. Payments for carbon
can contribute to cash income and may en-
able smallholders to overcome some initial
project investment costs (e.g. Palmer and
Silber, 2012). However, with the current
low prices for carbon on the carbon-offset
market such incentives may prove inad-
equate (e.g. Smith et al ., 2007; Grace et al ., 2012).
In industrialized countries, farmers' key
concern may be to secure the viability of
their farming operations, while in develop-
ing countries or under pressure of poverty,
short-term food and water security are higher
priorities. Soil carbon may indeed be man-
aged to enhance the adaptive capacity and
to reduce the vulnerability at the farm level
to exogenous changes (climatic, economic,
demographic), but these objectives are often
traded-off against managing the immediate
short-term threat. It is thus important to
note that biophysical and socio-economic
concerns interact and sometimes counteract
in complex ways. The farm system is a com-
plex social-ecological system, and finding
solutions that enhance aims across tem-
poral scales requires integrated approaches.
Plate 5 illustrates that the socio-economic
effects (in terms of actors affected) that arise
from the problem of SOC loss (shaded red)
are greatest at the bottom of the spatial scale;
that is, where most individual land users are
located. However, such socio-economic prob-
lems are also manifest at the global level,
although fewer actors are dealing with such
problems (e.g. multilateral development agen-
cies). The biophysical issues show the oppos-
ite pattern as we move from the local to the
global scale, i.e. the biophysical problems
mostly become manifest at the local scale.
The meso scale (national scale) is associated
with fewer (national level) agents being af-
fected by SOC loss (both in terms of socio-
economic and biophysical considerations).
Most of the existing 'best practices'
occur at the lower scales and are related
mostly to biophysical/technological innov-
ations. Fewer best practices are found as we
move upwards in the spatial scale.
Plate 5 has the shape of an hourglass to
illustrate the following points:
Table 4.2. Objectives of land use at various scales in space and time. Grey highlight indicates
short-term objectives that may conflict with long-term objectives.
Short-term objectives
Long-term objectives
Socio-
economy
Socio-
economy
Soil system
Soil carbon
Soil system
Soil carbon
Farm
Securing/
maximizing
profit
Yield
maximization
Utilization
Prosperity
Fertility
resilience
Maintenance/
increase
Catchment
Securing/
maximizing
profit
Resource
optimization
Exploitation
Viability
Diversity/
stability
Maintenance/
increase
Nation
Economic
growth/
employment
Balanced
productivity
Maintenance
Prosperity,
geopolitical
influence
Sustainability Maintenance/
increase
Global
Freedom from
armed
strife/peace
Balanced
productivity
Maintenance
Security and
stability
Sustainability Maintenance/
increase
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search