IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i5p1425-d211930.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agrobiodiversity and Public Food Procurement Programs in Brazil: Influence of Local Stakeholders in Configuring Green Mediated Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Gabriel L. Resque

    (Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia, Campus de Paragominas, 68625-000 Paragominas, Brazil)

  • Emilie Coudel

    (UPR Green-Cirad, Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Universidade Nacional de Brasilia, Campus Darcy Ribeiro, 70910-900 Brasilia, Brazil)

  • Marie-Gabrielle Piketty

    (UPR Green-Cirad, Pontifica Universidad Javeriana, a 4-38, Cl. 42 #42 Bogota, Colombia)

  • Nathalie Cialdella

    (UMR Innovation-Cirad, Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, 66095-903 Belém, Brazil)

  • Tatiana Sá

    (UMR Tetis-Cirad, Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, 66095-903 Belém, Brazil)

  • Marc Piraux

    (Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, 66095-903 Belém, Brazil)

  • William Assis

    (Instituto Amazônico de Agriculturas Familiares (INEAF), Universidade Federal do Pará, 66075-110 Belém, Brazil)

  • Christophe Le Page

    (UPR GREEN, CIRAD, F-34398 Montpellier, France)

Abstract

The last few years have seen the emergence of different initiatives designed to promote the biodiversification of agroecosystems as a counterpoint to the global expansion of homogenized industrial agriculture. In Brazil, two food procurement programs demonstrate the potential to promote discussions related to this agroecological transition: the National School Meal Program (Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar, PNAE) and the Food Procurement Program (Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos, PAA). The objectives of this paper are to analyze: (a) how these procurement programs currently integrate agrobiodiversity (crops and cropping systems) according to the local context; (b) the main challenges that key stakeholders perceive for the adoption of biodiverse systems; and (c) the extent to which the key stakeholders involved in these programs associate agrobiodiversity with the provision of ecosystem services. We carried out this research in 2017 in two contrasting municipalities in the eastern part of the Brazilian Amazon, Paragominas and Irituia. Our research shows that these programs have included up to 42 species in Irituia and 32 species in Paragominas. Perennial crop species are the most common type of culture in Irituia (up to 50%), while vegetables are the most common in Paragominas (up to 47%). Although in both municipalities stakeholders identify a large number of ecosystem services (up to 17), services mentioned in Irituia were more closely related to agrobiodiversity. Stakeholders indirectly associated with the programs have a broader view of ecosystem services. We conclude that these procurement programs can be useful tools to promote the biodiversification of local production systems, but their potential may depend on involving institutions not directly associated with their administration. Additionally, despite the observed differences in production context, providing more ecosystem services appears to be a compelling motivation for promoting changes in agroecosystems.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Gabriel L. Resque & Emilie Coudel & Marie-Gabrielle Piketty & Nathalie Cialdella & Tatiana Sá & Marc Piraux & William Assis & Christophe Le Page, 2019. "Agrobiodiversity and Public Food Procurement Programs in Brazil: Influence of Local Stakeholders in Configuring Green Mediated Markets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1425-:d:211930
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1425/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1425/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Coq-Huelva & Angie Higuchi & Rafaela Alfalla-Luque & Ricardo Burgos-Morán & Ruth Arias-Gutiérrez, 2017. "Co-Evolution and Bio-Social Construction: The Kichwa Agroforestry Systems ( Chakras ) in the Ecuadorian Amazonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Matthew Heron Wilson & Sarah Taylor Lovell, 2016. "Agroforestry—The Next Step in Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-15, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Cerdán, C.R. & Rebolledo, M.C. & Soto, G. & Rapidel, B. & Sinclair, F.L., 2012. "Local knowledge of impacts of tree cover on ecosystem services in smallholder coffee production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 119-130.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bolier Torres & Cristian Vasco & Sven Günter & Thomas Knoke, 2018. "Determinants of Agricultural Diversification in a Hotspot Area: Evidence from Colonist and Indigenous Communities in the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve, Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    2. 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).
    3. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Sri Astutik & Jürgen Pretzsch & Jude Ndzifon Kimengsi, 2019. "Asian Medicinal Plants’ Production and Utilization Potentials: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-33, October.
    5. George Pavlidis & Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis, 2018. "Environmental Benefits and Control of Pollution to Surface Water and Groundwater by Agroforestry Systems: a Review," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(1), pages 1-29, January.
    6. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    7. Shah, Syed Mahboob & Liu, Gengyuan & Yang, Qing & Casazza, Marco & Agostinho, Feni & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2021. "Sustainability assessment of agriculture production systems in Pakistan: A provincial-scale energy-based evaluation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    8. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    9. Ehsan Moradi & Jesús Rodrigo-Comino & Enric Terol & Gaspar Mora-Navarro & Alexandre Marco da Silva & Ioannis N. Daliakopoulos & Hassan Khosravi & Manuel Pulido Fernández & Artemi Cerdà, 2020. "Quantifying Soil Compaction in Persimmon Orchards Using ISUM (Improved Stock Unearthing Method) and Core Sampling Methods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Andreea Ionescu & Radu Tudor & Alin-Ionuț Pleșoianu & Mioara Clius, 2022. "Online Environment as a Tool to Push Forward the Research: An Example for Landscape Disservices," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, February.
    11. Shah Fahad & Sangram Bhanudas Chavan & Akash Ravindra Chichaghare & Appanderanda Ramani Uthappa & Manish Kumar & Vijaysinha Kakade & Aliza Pradhan & Dinesh Jinger & Gauri Rawale & Dinesh Kumar Yadav &, 2022. "Agroforestry Systems for Soil Health Improvement and Maintenance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-25, November.
    12. Carmen Schwartz & Mostafa Shaaban & Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura & Annette Piorr, 2021. "Participatory Mapping of Demand for Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Kovacs, Kent F. & Wailes, Eric & West, Grant & Popp, Jennie & Bektemirov, Kuatbay, 2014. "Optimal Spatial-Dynamic Management of Groundwater Conservation and Surface Water Quality with On-Farm Reservoirs," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(4), pages 1-28, November.
    14. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.
    17. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    18. Schleyer, Christian & Plieninger, Tobias, 2011. "Identifying obstacles to the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115992, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Karner, Katrin & Schmid, Erwin & Schneider, Uwe A. & Mitter, Hermine, 2021. "Computing stochastic Pareto frontiers between economic and environmental goals for a semi-arid agricultural production region in Austria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    20. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.

    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:5:p:1425-:d:211930. 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.