Ecosystem service provision from agricultural lands of Argentina.
Geographical coverage
| Geographical scale of the assessment | National,Sub-national |
|---|---|
| Country or countries covered | Argentina |
| Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name |
Various sub-national areas were included: Rolling Pampas, Central Pampas, Southern Pampas, Semiarid Pampas, Flooding Pampas and Mesopotamian Pampas, the Humid-Sub-humid Chaco, Central Sub-humid Chaco, Dry Chaco and Western Sub-humid Chaco, the Espinal, the Atlantic Forest, the Iberá Marshes, the Paraná Delta and the Yungas |
Geographical scale of the assessment
National,Sub-national
Country or countries covered
Argentina
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name
Various sub-national areas were included: Rolling Pampas, Central Pampas, Southern Pampas, Semiarid Pampas, Flooding Pampas and Mesopotamian Pampas, the Humid-Sub-humid Chaco, Central Sub-humid Chaco, Dry Chaco and Western Sub-humid Chaco, the Espinal, the Atlantic Forest, the Iberá Marshes, the Paraná Delta and the Yungas
Conceptual framework, methodology and scope
Assessment objectives
We aimed to (i) estimate the relative (0–100) provision of ecosystem services through the application of a simple biophysical model, (ii) estimate the annual gross margin (GM) ha−1 of farming activities in different regions, and (iii) assess the tradeoffs between the provision of ecosystem and economic services in order to support decision making and land-use policy.
Mandate for the assessment
(i) to provide an approach, methods, techniques and tools to assess ecosystem service provision in arable lands; (ii) to explore options for land use policy- and decision-making.
Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment
Other (please specify)
Approaches and methods were developed for undertaking research activities.
URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted
It was assumed that the main ecosystem services (soil protection, production, purification and water supply, provision of habitat and shelter) were directly associated with the amount of biomass. Besides, other biophysical factors (slope, water bodies’ coverage, precipitation, etc.) were also assumed to be associated with services provision.
System(s) assessed
- Forest and woodland
- Cultivated/Agricultural land
- Grassland
Species groups assessed
Ecosystem services/functions assessed
Provisioning
- Food
- Water
Regulating
- Regulation of water flows
- Regulation of water quality
- Waste treatment
- Erosion prevention
Supporting Services/Functions
- Habitat maintenance
- Nutrient cycling
- Primary production
Cultural Services
Scope of assessment includes
Drivers of change in systems and services
Yes
Impacts of change in services on human well-being
Yes
Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed
No
Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment
No
Timing of the assessment
Year assessment started
2006
Year assessment finished
Ongoing
If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish
2014
Periodicity of assessment
One off
Assessment outputs
Website(s)
Report(s)
Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)
Power Point file showing progress in ecosystem service assessment in Argentina
SGA-Argentina.ppt
Journal publications
Carreño, L. V., Frank, F.C., Viglizzo, E.F. (2012). Tradeoffs between economic and ecosystem services in Argentina during 50 years of land-use change. Argentina. In: Ecosystem services and Land Use Policy (E.F. Viglizzo, P. Laterra, J.M. Pauelo, EG Jobbágy, eds.). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 154: 68– 77.
AGEE-Carreño_et_al_2012.pdf
Frank, F.C., Viglizzo, E.F. (2012). Water use in rain-fed farming at different scales in the Pampas of Argentina. Agricultural Systems 109: 35–42.
AGSY-Frank___Viglizzo_2012.pdf
Viglizzo, E.F., Frank, F.C., Carreño, L.V., Jobbágy, E.G., Pereyra, H., Clatt, J., Pincén, D., Ricard, F.M. (2011). Ecological and environmental footprint of 50 years of agricultural expansion in Argentina. Global Change Biology 17, 959–973.
GCB-Viglizzo_et_al_2011.pdf
Viglizzo, E.F., Paruelo, J. M., Laterra, P., Jobbágy, E.G. (2012). Ecosystem service evaluation to support land-use policy. In: Ecosystem services and Land Use Policy (E.F. Viglizzo, P. Laterra, J.M. Pauelo, EG Jobbágy, eds.). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 54, 78–84.
AGEE-Viglizzo_et_al-Ecoservices_and_LU_policy.pdf
Viglizzo, E.F., Ricard, F.M., Jobbágy, E.G. Frank, F.C., Carreño, L.V. (2011). Assessing the cross-scale impact of 50 years of agricultural transformation in Argentina. Field Crops Research 124: 186–194.
FCR-Viglizzo_et_al_2011-Cross-scale_impact.pdf
Training materials
AgroEcoIndex model
4.Modelo_AgroEcoIndex_09.xls
Training material on the use and applicationof AgroEcoIndex model
Primer_Curso_AEI_2_de_3.ppt
Other documents/outputs
Tools and processes
Tools and approaches used in the assessment
- Modelling
- Trade-off analysis
- Geospatial analysis
- Indicators
- Economic valuation
Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component
Courses and meetings with farmers, decision makers and university students.
Key stakeholder groups engaged
Various assessments were made involving farmer groups, members of agricultural investment funds and agro-industrial firms. Assessments were in general rather discontinuous.
The number of people directly involved in the assessment process
10-100
Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge
- Scientific information only
- Resource experts (e.g. foresters etc)
Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment
Methodological documents were delivered for training experts.
Assessment reports peer reviewed
Yes
Data
Accessibility of data used in assessment
Accessible when requested.
Policy impact
Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions
We expect an impact in the mid- and long-term because a lot of public agents, stakeholders, experts and university students were trained during the last 6-year period to use our approaches, methods and techniques. We have no still empirical evidence to demonstrate an effective impact of this assessment on policy makers and other actors of society.
Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment
No
Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews
We were more effective to reach scientific and technical actors than on public agents and policy makers.
Capacity building
Capacity building needs identified during the assessment
We presume that we have largely contribute to fill capacity building needs because of increasing specific demands from stakeholders and interest groups.
Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity
Network and sharing experiences, Access to funding, Workshops, Developing/promoting and providing access to support tools, Formal training, Communication and awareness raising
How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders
Gaps were easily identified by stakeholders when they demand issues that we cannot satisfy.
Knowledge generation
Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment
We have strongly relied on biophysical methods to calculate the provision of ecosystem services as a bulk estimation, but we were still unable to de-aggregate a valuation of single ecosystem services.
How gaps in knowledge have been communicated to the different stakeholders
Simply telling the limitation of our methods to estimate the valuation on single ecosystem services.
Additional relevant information
We did not still find an efficient mechanisms to directly influence policy making and public agents.
