About the theme

Ecosystem services are the benefits that human beings obtain from ecosystems. These include provision services, such as foods and water; regulation, such as the regulation of floods, droughts, soil degradation; support services, such as soil formation and nutrient cycling;  and cultural services, such as leisure, spiritual, religious and other immaterial benefits (MEA, 2005). On the other hand, environmental services are defined as the environmental benefits resulting from intentional interventions from society in ecosystem dynamics (Muradian et al., 2010). They refer to the conservationist management of the soil, water, forest rehabilitation, among others. According to HERMANN et al. (2011), the concept of ecosystem services traces back to the late 1960s and 1970s. In the following three decades, other scientists would draw attention to economic dependence on natural capital (WESTMAN, 1977; OF GROOT, 1987; DAILY, 1997 and COSTANZA and FOLKE 1997).

Introduction

In the last few decades, socioenvironmental issues have been increasingly addressed through an ecosystem services approach. Permeating different sectors of society, the ecosystems approach from the standpoint of services has been more and more incorporated in policy agendas, sectoral plans, and debates by the organized civil society. The increased interest and repercussion of this area of knowledge has been due to a better understanding of the fact humankind and nature are closely connected and interdependent (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2017).

The accelerated degradation that natural resources have been undergoing, a result of land use and cover dynamics and inadequate soil, water, and biodiversity management, has caused a world concern in the last few decades. The conversion of forests into cattle farming or agricultural lands, in addition to urbanization and industrialization processes, has had a negative impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. In rural areas, deforestation, inadequate agricultural practices and indiscriminate use of agrochemicals have led to soil degradation, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, among others. Such impacts have compromised the natural performance and self-regulation of the environment and respective ability to provide ecosystem services and environmental services.

Compromising the provision of environmental/ecosystem services not only generates economic impacts, but also affects human health, well-being and the operation of societies. Hence the scientific community has been assessing and systematizing information on such services, in recognition of the need and the urgency of taking innovative measures to protect ecosystems while conciliating conservation with economic development. Within such scope, the agricultural and forest sectors can contribute both in the supply and in the suppression of environmental services. Agricultural ecosystems cover about 40% of the surface the Earth, and the sustainable management of such agroecosystems, aligning agricultural production with the provision of ecosystem services, s desirable for the development of production systems that conserve natural resources for future use.

State of the art

The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), a major reference in the subject, evaluated the consequences that changes to ecosystems cause to human well-being, and the scientific foundations for the actions required to improve the conservation and sustainable use of such ecosystems. Since then, several authors and projects have performed the classification, assessment, quantification, mapping, modelling and valuation of ecosystem services around the world, in order to inform decision-making with regard to ecosystems. The ecosystem approach is premised on: a systemic and interdisciplinary vision; adding value to ecosystem services related to human well-being; internalization of the costs of maintaining ecosystem services in production systems, and closer ties between science and public policy.

There is a classification of ecosystem services proposed by the MA, 2005, which has been applied in most recent studies:

Ecosystem Services

  • Regulating Services: Examples: Climate regulation, regulation of human diseases, biological control, erosion control, water regulation and purification, and pollination.
  • Provisioning Services (supply): Examples: Food, fresh water, fuelwood, fiber, biochemicals, and genetic resources.
  • Cultural Services: Examples: Ecotourism and recreation, spiritual and religious values, aesthetic values, inspiration, knowledge systems, sense of place and cultural heritage values.
  • Supporting Services: Examples: Soil formation, oxygen production, nutrient cycling, and primary production.

In addition to the classification proposed by the MEA (2005), a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services(CICES) is being drafted and is currently in its version 5.1 (Haines-Young; Potschin, 2018), under the leadership of the European Environment Agency (EEA), with the aim of standardizing the description of ES for comparison of environmental accounting methods, and of ES mapping and assessment methods.  CICES recognizes three categories of services: provisioning, cultural regulation, and the ones that are considered the “final ecosystem services”, i.e. support services as part of the underlying structures, processes and functions that characterize ecosystems. In such categories, CICES uses a five-tier hierarchical structure, where each level is gradually more detailed and specific, namely: Section, Division, Group, Class, and Class type. According to the EEA, this hierarchical structure “is a more robust tool and easier to understand” that is intended to be developed and adapted in the course of time.

There are several national and international research networks working on the subject. A study conducted by Embrapa (Lima et al, 2015) identified that the number of publications on the topic has been significantly increasing in recent years (Figure below).

Figure 1. Number of publications on Ecosystem Services, per year. Source: PARRON et al., 2019. (Obs: for the year 2017, publications were considered up to October 2017)

In the scope of public policy, the ecosystem services approach is being applied all over the world, fostering platforms, several discussion forums and even international negotiations aiming at achieving protocols and targets that contribute to global sustainability. In Brazil, the situation is not different. There have been several governmental and non-governmental initiatives in different scales in favor of the provision of ecosystem services related to water, carbon and biodiversity. Other highlights include Law 12651/2012, which established the New Forest Code; Law 12187/2009, which established the National Climate Change Policy and the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Sector Plan to Consolidate a Low-Carbon Economy (ABC Plan); and the Water Producing Program of the National Water Agency, which enabled projects of Payment for Environmental Water Service.

The Payment for Environmental Services (PES) is a financial mechanism that allows voluntary compensation to land users (payment or another form) for the adoption of better forest management and rehabilitation practices that can result in ecosystem services, to the benefit of a specific user or of society as a whole. Congress is also considering several bills that propose the National Policy on the Payment for Environmental Services, which will create guidelines for the implementation of PES in Brazil.

Embrapa has expanded its scope of operations in the area and has several research groups focused on ecosystem and environmental services in all Brazilian biomes that compose a Research Network on Environmental Services.

Environmental Services Portfolio

The Research Network on Environmental Services was created in 2011 to allow the integration and exchange of experiences between Embrapa research groups working in different biomes, external partners, and farmers. Nowadays this Research Network comprises the Environmental Services Portfolio, which. 

This network is coordinated by a committee of 8 researchers, representatives of different Embrapa units that work on the theme. However, in total, it is composed by over 100 researchers from approximately 20 Embrapa units, as well as external partners, working in different Brazilian biomes.

The groups mostly have an interdisciplinary and multiscale (national, regional and local) performance, with specificities in accordance with the natural, social and economic characteristics of their regions and the experience and expertise of the researchers involved. They also consider the agricultural production systems found in the different biomes.

The Environmental Services portfolio aims to maximize the provision of multiple environmental services in agricultural production systems in rural, periurban and urban areas of Brazil. The focus is to inform research for assessment, added value, and recommendations aiming at the Internalisation of environmental services in different agricultural production processes, on different scales and in different biomes. This portfolio also aims to contribute to the appreaciation of the role of rural communities with regard to biodiversity conservation and restoration and environmental services, through the elaboration of methods to certify production and ensure differentiated markets and audiences. Such aim is in line with Embrapa's work on the Bioeconomy, a priority subject for the corporation in the upcoming decades.

It is expected that the network's research results will generate support information for the conservation, recovery and valuation of ecosystem and environmental services in natural systems and in agricultural and forest production systems.It is also expected that the technologies, solutions and knowledge generated by the Environmental Services Portfolio support public policy to be more effective in promoting the provision of environmental services, which are essential to sustainable development.

Access here the webpage for the portfolio.

Agriculture and Ecosystem Services

Production systems can contribute to improving and increasing the provision of ecosystem services from the adequate use and management of agroecosystems in the agricultural landscape, and reduce their environmental disservices (Figure 2).

In Brazil, the agricultural sector is of major importance and the promotion of sustainability in production systems has been seen as one of the differentials of the Brazilian product. On the environment side, sustainability is based on the promotion of models of agricultural development based on production systems that comprehend ecosystem services and the multifunctionality of the agricultural landscape.

The term “multifunctionality of agriculture” has been used with several meanings in the debate on agricultural policies, depending on the country and the context where it appeared (OECD, 2001). In Brazil, the use of this approach is still limited, but it has been gathering momentum with demonstrations of the potential of agriculture in providing ecosystem services beyond its primary role of producing of foods, fiber, and energy. This concept translates into an approach of provision of ecosystem services for agroecosystems.

Agricultural activities not only benefit from ecosystem services (water supply and pollination), but can also provide and contribute to the maintenance of such services. Agriculture, which encompasses agricultural and forestry activities, can go beyond its primary function, consisting of the provision of foods and fibers, in order to contribute with other ecosystem services like support, regulation, provision, and cultural services, i.e. erosion control, nutrient cycling, maintenance of soil fertility, biodiversity conservation, and agrotourism, among others. Therefore, suitable agricultural management aimed at the multifunctionality of the agricultural landscape reverts the condition of agriculture as a cause of ecosystem disservices into the status of supplier of multiple ecosystem services.

It is also important to underscore that ecosystem services can also be addressed on multiple levels, in order to promote adapted production systems on a local level, but also the multifunctionality of the agricultural landscape, aiming at an increased provision of services. Multifunctional landscapes benefit production systems as they keep the flow of ecosystem services between natural areas, such as Permanent Preservation Areas and Legal Reserves, and cultivated areas, ensuring the sustainability of the latter.

In order to advance towards more sustainability and more provision of ES in the agricultural arena, it is necessary to combine public and private sector, research, society and government efforts to adopt processes, systems and means to produce and to consume more conscientiously.

 

Services and disservices provided by agroecosystems in the rural landscape. Source: Alison G. Power, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010;365:2959-2971.

Some research results from the Environmental Services Portfolio

Some research results in the scope of the Embrapa Environmental Services Network can be observed as follows:

Research challenges in the area

The formulation and application of methodologies to assess the quality of environmental functions and services can inform the decisions of farmers, managers and other direct users of natural resources, as well as help the development and the use of political-economic tools to identify and encourage natural resource management actors and practices, to benefit the conservation of environmental services. The internalization of the concept of provision and regulation of environmental services in production systems, in decision-making processes, in territorial management, and in agricultural and forest land use and management can result in evident positive environmental impacts in the agricultural landscape and in human well-being.

There are demands and gaps concerning regional and local environmental services, which need to be supplied to obtain efficiency and sustainability in the agricultural and forestry sectors and which research can aid, such as: analysis of public policy; assessment and monitoring; analysis of land use and cover dynamics; consolidation of landscape quality indicators; systematization and standardization of protocols; development and application of new assessment and monitoring methods; support to valuation and compensation mechanisms; spatial analysis of the agricultural landscape through geotechnologies; dissemination of methods and tools to support decision-making; information organization and transfer of results; promotion of efficient communications with different segments of society with regard to the subject; promotion of conservationist technologies, processes and production systems; and training of human resources in the area.

The organization and publicization of information to support decisions in the agricultural sector is also one of the roles of agricultural and forestry research, aiming at bringing science closer to public policy.

References

 

CAMPANHA, M. M.; FIDALGO, E. C. C.; AQUINO, F. de G.; FERREIRA, F. N.; BERGIER, I.; FERREIRA, J. N.; PARRON, L. M.; PRADO, R. B.; TONUCCI, R. G. Serviços ambientais e a agropecuária. Folhetos, Sete Lagoas: Embrapa Milho e Sorgo, 2019. 9 p. http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/197720/1/Servicos-ambientais.pdf.

FERRAZ, R. P. D.; PRADO, R. B.; PARRON, L. M.; CAMPANHA, M. M. (Ed.). Marco referencial em serviços ecossistêmicos. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2019. 121 p. il. color.

http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/199960/1/Marco-Referencial-em-Servicos-Ecossistemicos-2019.pdf

HAINES-YOUNG, R., M.B. POTSCHIN (2018):Common International Classification ofEcosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Disponível em: <https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf> Acesso em: 29 agosto 2019.

OECD. Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2001. 160p.

OGLE, S.M.; BREIDT, F.J.; PAUSTIAN, K. Agricultural management impacts on soil organic carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry, v.72, p.87-121, 2005. DOI: 10.1007/s10533-004-0360-2.

PARRON, L. M.; FIDALGO, E. C. C.; LUZ, A. P.; CAMPANHA, M. M.; TURETTA, A. P. D.; PEDREIRA, B. da C. C. G.; PRADO, R. B. Research on ecosystem services in Brazil: a systematic review. Revista Ambiente & Água, v. 14, n. 3, e2263, 2019.

POWER, A. G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, v.365, p.2959-2971, 2010.

PRADO, R. B.; FIDALGO, E. C. C.; MONTEIRO, J. M.; SCHULER, A. E.; VEZZANI, F. M.; GARCIA, J. R.; OLIVEIRA, A. P.; VIANA, J. H. M.; PEDREIRA, B. C. C. G.; MENDES, I. C.; BRAGA, A. R. S.; PARRON, L. M.; CLEMENTE, E. P.; DONAGEMMA, G. K.; TURETTA, A. P. D.; SIMÕES, M. Current overview and potential applications of the soil ecosystem services approach in Brazil. Pesq. agropec. bras., Brasília, v.51, n.9, p.1021-1038, set. 2016.

WUNDER, S. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper, n. 42, 2005. 24 p.