IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i4p1158-d208151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Governance of Ecosystem Services in Agroecology: When Coordination is Needed but Difficult to Achieve

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Salliou

    (DYNAFOR, Université de Toulouse, INPT, INRA, 24 Chemin de Borde Rouge, 31326 Auzeville, France
    Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, Institute for Spatial and Landscape Development, Planning of Landscape and Urban Systems (PLUS), ETH Zürich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland)

  • Roldan Muradian

    (Faculty of Economics, Universidade Federal Fluminense, 9 R. Miguel de Frias, Rio de Janeiro 24220-900, Brazil)

  • Cécile Barnaud

    (DYNAFOR, Université de Toulouse, INPT, INRA, 24 Chemin de Borde Rouge, 31326 Auzeville, France)

Abstract

Transitioning towards agroecology involves the integration of biodiversity based ecosystem services into farming systems: for example, relying on biological pest control rather than pesticides. One promising approach for pest control relies on the conservation of semi-natural habitats at the landscape scale to encourage natural enemies of insect pests. However, this approach may require coordination between farmers to manage the interdependencies between the providers and beneficiaries of this ecosystem service. The main objective of this study was to identify hindrances to landscape-scale coordination strategies to control pests. To this end, we used a theoretical framework specifically designed to explore social interdependencies linked to ecosystem services. We applied this framework to a participatory research case study on pest control in apple orchards in southwest France to identify and describe key obstacles. We found four main impediments: (1) The perception of most stakeholders that the landscape does not deliver significant pest control services, (2) the challenge of coping with agroecological uncertainties, (3) an integrated vertical supply chain focused on pesticide use, (4) the existence of independent, non-collective alternatives. We discuss the potential of overcoming these obstacles or turning them into opportunities that promote a transition to agroecology and the integration of ecosystem services in farms and their supply chains.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Salliou & Roldan Muradian & Cécile Barnaud, 2019. "Governance of Ecosystem Services in Agroecology: When Coordination is Needed but Difficult to Achieve," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:4:p:1158-:d:208151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/4/1158/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/4/1158/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    2. Cong, Rong-Gang & Smith, Henrik G. & Olsson, Ola & Brady, Mark, 2014. "Managing ecosystem services for agriculture: Will landscape-scale management pay?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 53-62.
    3. Stallman, Heidi R. & James, Harvey S., 2015. "Determinants affecting farmers' willingness to cooperate to control pests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 182-192.
    4. Cees Leeuwis, 2000. "Reconceptualizing Participation for Sustainable Rural Development: Towards a Negotiation Approach," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 31(5), pages 931-959, November.
    5. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    6. Ledyard, John O., "undated". "Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research," Working Papers 861, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    7. Ostman, Orjan & Ekbom, Barbara & Bengtsson, Janne, 2003. "Yield increase attributable to aphid predation by ground-living polyphagous natural enemies in spring barley in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 149-158, April.
    8. Stallman, Heidi R., 2011. "Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 131-139.
    9. Bell, Andrew & Zhang, Wei & Nou, Keosothea, 2016. "Pesticide use and cooperative management of natural enemy habitat in a framed field experiment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 1-13.
    10. Muradian, Roldan & Rival, Laura, 2012. "Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 93-100.
    11. Cowan, Robin & Gunby, Philip, 1996. "Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-In and Pest Control Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 521-542, May.
    12. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    2. Le Gal, Antoine & Robert, Corinne & Accatino, Francesco & Claessen, David & Lecomte, Jane, 2020. "Modelling the interactions between landscape structure and spatio-temporal dynamics of pest natural enemies: Implications for conservation biological control," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 420(C).
    3. Verena Rodorff & Marianna Siegmund-Schultze & Maike Guschal & Sonja Hölzl & Johann Köppel, 2019. "Good Governance: A Framework for Implementing Sustainable Land Management, Applied to an Agricultural Case in Northeast-Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Allain, Sandrine & Salliou, Nicolas, 2022. "Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Faure, Jérôme & Mouysset, Lauriane & Gaba, Sabrina, 2023. "Combining incentives with collective action to provide pollination and a bundle of ecosystem services in farmland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stallman, Heidi R. & James, Harvey S., 2015. "Determinants affecting farmers' willingness to cooperate to control pests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 182-192.
    2. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    3. Zaga-Mendez, Alejandra & Bissonnette, Jean-François & Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Cleaver, Frances & Dupras, Jérôme, 2021. "Towards collective action in ecosystem services governance: The recognition of social interdependencies in three collective agri-environmental initiatives in Quebec," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    4. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    5. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    6. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    7. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    8. Elisa Oteros-Rozas & Federica Ravera & Marina García-Llorente, 2019. "How Does Agroecology Contribute to the Transitions towards Social-Ecological Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-13, August.
    9. Marin, Anabel & Stubrin, Lilia & van Zwanenberg, Patrick, 2023. "Technological lock-in in action: Appraisal and policy commitment in Argentina's seed sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    10. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    11. Bareille, Francois & Boussard, Hugues & Thenail, Claudine, 2020. "Productive ecosystem services and collective management: Lessons from a realistic landscape model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Francois Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2021. "Cooperative Management of Ecosystem Services: Coalition Formation, Landscape Structure and Policies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(2), pages 323-356, June.
    13. Ron Methorst & Dirk Roep & Frans Verhees & Jos Verstegen, 2016. "Drivers for differences in dairy farmers’ perceptions of farm development strategies in an area with nature and landscape as protected public goods," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 31(5), pages 554-571, August.
    14. Lucas, Véronique, 2021. "A “silent” agroecology: the significance of unrecognized sociotechnical changes made by French farmers," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), March.
    15. Palomo-Campesino, Sara & García-Llorente, Marina & Hevia, Violeta & Boeraeve, Fanny & Dendoncker, Nicolas & González, José A., 2022. "Do agroecological practices enhance the supply of ecosystem services? A comparison between agroecological and conventional horticultural farms," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    16. Laxmi Prasad Pant, 2019. "Responsible innovation through conscious contestation at the interface of agricultural science, policy, and civil society," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(2), pages 183-197, June.
    17. Nilsson, Lovisa & Clough, Yann & Smith, Henrik G. & Alkan Olsson, Johanna & Brady, Mark V. & Hristov, Jordan & Olsson, Peter & Skantze, Karin & Ståhlberg, David & Dänhardt, Juliana, 2019. "A suboptimal array of options erodes the value of CAP ecological focus areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 407-418.
    18. Boulestreau, Yann & Peyras, Claire-Lise & Casagrande, Marion & Navarrete, Mireille, 2022. "Tracking down coupled innovations supporting agroecological vegetable crop protection to foster sustainability transition of agrifood systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    19. Yajuan Chen & Qian Zhang & Wenping Liu & Zhenrong Yu, 2017. "Analyzing Farmers’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and PES Schemes within Agricultural Landscapes in Mengyin County, China: Transforming Trade-Offs into Synergies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
    20. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:4:p:1158-:d:208151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.