Keywords

Introduction

Climate change poses one of the greatest threats in history to the realisation of sustainable development, as climate hazards are increasingly impacting human communities and ecosystems alike. The world’s poorest people and communities are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; they are on the frontline of a changing climate with everything to lose and little to cushion the blow (Girot et al. 2012). Climate change is also having a negative impact on traditional coping mechanisms and food security 1 thereby increasing the vulnerability of the world’s poor to famine and perturbations such as droughts, floods and diseases (Girot et al. 2012).

As some consequences, climate change impacts on natural resources, species and ecosystems will reduce options for local and national development, and increase the pressure on the remaining terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats. Losses in land fertility and landscape-level productivity through forces such as erosion and salinisation will affect rural and coastal communities’ livelihoods, further reducing opportunities for sustainable development and exacerbating poverty through reduced income opportunities (Girot et al. 2012).

There is need for more integrated approaches to adaptation that adhere both to human rights-based principles and to principles of sound environmental management and propose ways to bridge the artificial divide between adaptation approaches that focus on the role of ecosystems and those that support the role of communities and human rights. It is clear on the Hyogo Framework (Unisdr 2005) “There is now international acknowledgement that effort to reduce disaster risks must be systematically integrated into policies, plans and programmes for sustainable development and poverty reduction, and supported through bilateral, regional and international cooperation, including partnerships. Sustainable development, poverty reduction, good governance and disaster risk reduction are mutually supportive objectives, and in order to meet the challenges ahead, accelerated efforts must be made to build the necessary capacities at the community and national levels to manage and reduce risk”. In others words: increasing the resilience of both social and ecological systems is therefore imperative in the face of a changing climate.

Recently, there has been a surge in interest surrounding adaptation approaches, but these have tended to be dispersed and narrow in focus. Considering this reality, this chapter will present a study case considering the ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) approach.

Essentially, EbA addresses the crucial links between climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainable resource management (Travers et al. 2012). It can be understood as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people and communities adapt to the negative effects of climate change at local, national, regional and global levels (Travers et al. 2012).

In addition to protection from climate change impacts, EbA also provides many other benefits to communities, for example, through the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services crucial for livelihoods and human well-being, such as clean water and food (Travers et al. 2012). Appropriately, designed ecosystem management initiatives can also contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing emissions from ecosystem loss and degradation, and enhancing carbon sequestration.

EbA involves national and regional governments, local communities, private companies and NGOs in addressing the different pressures on ecosystem services, including land use change and climate change, and managing ecosystems to increase the resilience of people and economic sectors to climate change. The concept of EbA has emerged recently in the international climate change arena, with countries (e.g., Colombia, Sri Lanka), groups of countries (e.g., the African Group) and observers (e.g. the International Union for Conservation of Nature) addressing EbA in their submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Vignola et al. 2009).

The guidance ‘profiles’ EbA measures providing a description of opportunities, limitations, and contexts for use. Further, EbA measures and traditional adaptation technologies are aligned to discrete ecosystem services, to support profiling of adaptation technologies (Travers et al. 2012).

Guidance, has proposed by Travers et al. (2012) proposed a guidance with some steps necessary to apply the EbA approach. The four components (A, B, C and D) are presented individually with associated focus questions. The format of the guidance provided in Components ‘C’ and D is necessarily discursive in nature while context setting information in A and B lends more to a question-and-answer format (Fig. 12.1).

Fig. 12.1
figure 1

EbA guidance framework (Travers et al. 2012)

Full size image

Basically, the four components can be described as follow (Travers et al. 2012):

  1. A.

    Setting the adaptive context: supports selection of the most appropriate options for adaptation in a given context. Component A explores this context with a view to establishing where information gaps exist;

  2. B.

    Identification of appropriate intervention measures and associated, context specific, adaptive actions;

  3. C.

    Supports the transition from a list of selected intervention measures, to develop a program that will guide implementation and define a plan to evaluate and reflect on performance;

  4. D.

    Provides users with guidance to be confident in implementing change if and when required.

Considering EbA Approach in Agriculture

The agroecosystem concept can be used to analyse food systems as wholes, including their complex sets and outputs, as well as the interconections between their components, resulting in benefits for the whole system (Gliessman 2006).

A term that has been widely used to indicate the many functions and benefits provided by agroecosystems is “multifunctional agriculture” (MFA). It recognizes the inescapable interconnectedness between agriculture’s different roles and functions, that is, that agriculture is a multi-output activity, producing not only commodities, but also non-commodity outputs, such as environmental services, landscape amenities, and cultural heritages (UNEP 2016). The MFA concept entered definitely in the sustainable development debate after being addressed in the Agenda 21 documents of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Rossing et al. 2007). Since then, it has obtained an increasingly important role in scientific and policy debates on the future of agricultural and rural development (Renting et al. 2009). For instance, the MFA is directly linked with the improvement of environmental functionality, acting to minimize the adverse impacts of climate change through integrating new and improved crop varieties and livestock breeds into diversified, resilient, risk—averse farming systems (IAASTS 2008).

Therefore, the MFA is a fundamental issue for ecosystem services (ES) provision, defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO 2011) stresses that healthy ecosystems provide a variety of vital goods and services that contribute directly or indirectly to human well-being, in economic, social and environmental spheres. These services include: provisioning services, such as food, wood, fiber, and fuel production, as well as fresh water; regulating services, like flood, disease, and water quality control, besides carbon storage, waste treatment (nutrients and pesticides), and climate regulation through greenhouse gas emissions; cultural services, comprising spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits, associated to scenic beauty, education, recreation and tourism; and supporting services, such as nutrient cycling and primary production, which maintain the conditions for life on Earth (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Power 2010).

Although agroecosystems may have low ES values per unit area, when compared with other ecosystems, they offer the best chance of increasing global ES—given the proportion of land devoted to agriculture worldwide—by defining appropriate goals for agricultural and land use management regimes that favor the provision of these services (Porter et al. 2009). In other words, it is possible and essential to improve ES provision from agriculture through agricultural management practices considering, among other things, climate change adaptation.

Research Approach

The case study considered in this chapter is the Pito Aceso watershed, located in Bom Jardim municipality, mountains region of Rio de Janeiro State. This region is characterized by rocky cliffs, thick soil and deforested areas of the Atlantic Forest, making it susceptible to landslides (Dantas et al. 2001). Historically, the region was continuously covered by the Atlantic rainforest, which was significantly removed to give way to vegetable crops, pastures and urbanization. Some parts of the original forest remain and in various locations re-colonization by secondary forests have occurred due to their unsuitability to agricultural activities. These regenerated forests permit the entry of water into the soil, however they do not have deep root anchoring systems that increase soil resistance on the slopes. During the expansion of urbanization and rural activity, slopes were cut to enable the implementation of roads and residences (Avelar et al. 2011). This change in land use cover and associated urban development process increased the region’s vulnerability to erosion and incidence of floods.

The Pito Aceso watershed has around 500 ha, and presents a mosaic of land use/land covers in its area (Tavora and Turetta 2016; Fig. 12.2). The majority activity is the small farming characterized by the intensive use of fertilizers.

Fig. 12.2
figure 2

Pito Aceso watershed location

Full size image

To apply the EbA guidance (Travers et al. 2012), the study of Turetta et al. (2016) in Pito Aceso watershed was used as a reference for the required analyses.

Discussion

Turetta et al. (2016) defined the criteria for the establishment and management of agroecosystems with representatives of agricultural entities, producers, and the research team (Table 12.1). Afterwards, the groups systematized the information and defined the priorities for Pito Aceso watershed concerning agroecosystems, ES provision, and indicators to monitor the proposed changes. Information about public policies was also considered, since these are crucial to enable changes in the agriculture and environment sectors. The improvement of ES provision from agriculture represents a real chance for Brazil to meet the international agreements about climate change.

Table 12.1 Criteria for the establishment and management of agroecosystems in the Atlantic Forest (Turetta et al. 2016)
Full size table

The information about the criteria for the establishment and management of agroecosystems in the Atlantic Forest (Table 12.1) is an important issue that is part of the component “A” outcome, according the EbA guidance (Travers et al. 2012). The authors suggest as outcome to component “A” a clear adaptation decision making context defined with a particular understanding of the role ecosystem services. To achieve this, it is necessary to add to this information the link with ecosystem services.

Turetta et al. (2016) defined the relationship among the criteria for the establishment and management of the agroecosystems, and the ecosystem services (ES) types, soil functions, potential soil indicator, ES benefits, and policy relevance in the study area (Table 12.2). The information presented in Table 12.2 is important to achieve the component “A” completely, as well as, the component “B”, that predict an appropriate adaptation options prioritised in project context (Travers et al. 2012).

Table 12.2 Relationship among the criteria for the establishment and management of the agroecosystems, in the study areas, and the environmental services (ES) types, soil functions, potential soil indicator, ES benefits, and policy relevance
Full size table

It was observed that the ES that were most affected were the supporting and provisioning types, which showed multifunctionality in agriculture: supporting services, for example, are related to nutrient cycling and primary production, whereas provisioning services include food, wood, fiber, and fuel production, as well as fresh water (Table 12.2). Yahdjian et al. (2015) point out that supporting services, particularly biodiversity and nutrient cycling, are essential to other ecosystem services, since they affect the supply of provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. Furthermore, Lal (2010) highlights that the increase in supporting services improves soil quality and crop yield, and reduces soil erodibility and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere. Schipanski et al. (2014) found that agricultural management may provide supporting services through biological nitrogen fixation by legumes and through nitrogen mineralization from cover crop residues. These factors reflect the potential to support crop production through internal nutrient cycling, reducing the use of synthetic fertilizers and their associated fossil fuel emissions. In addition, excessive nitrogen inputs can increase nitrate (NO3) pollution in streams and groundwater, and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions into the atmosphere, affecting air and water quality regulation. This shows that the ES type regulation is affected by the agroecosystem’s capacity to offer supporting and provisioning services. So, it is possible to say that climate change alters the functions of ecological systems. As a result, the provision of ecosystem services and the well-being of people that rely on these services are being modified.

So, Table 12.2 can be understand as an “adaptation options menu” for Atlantic Forest biome. The proposed managements provide various nutrients to the soil, mitigate the buildup of pathogens and pests that often occur in conventional systems, and improve soil structure and fertility, also affecting soil functioning.

EbA guidance (Travers et al. 2012) still has two othes component, “C” and “D” (Fig. 12.1). As the outcome of component “C” is the plan for implementation and evaluation and the outcome of component “D” is an adaptive approach to EbA implementation. However, it was not possible to achieve these components with the available information of Pito Aceso Watershed so far.

Conclusion

This chapter presented an application of EbA approach in Pito Aceso watershed, using available information. The results showed that ES types most affected by the establishment and management of agroecosystems are the supporting and provisioning services, showing the potential of agricultural management in providing multiple services, besides food, fiber, and energy. It also shows that agroecosystem management represent a huge potential for adaptation of climate change, since the water infiltration, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration and accumulation, sediment retention, and habitat were the functions most affect by the establishment and management of the agroecosystems. These functions are essential in the context of climate change adaptation.

So, the EbA approach proved very promising, since it considers the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services crucial for livelihoods and human well-being, such as clean water and food. However, to apply the EbA approach, it is necessary a large set of data to be used in a sequence of components. It is a hard model to be applied in under developed country, as those of Latin America, since it is hard to find public database with surveys of natural resources, economic and social aspects, in different scales.

However, with the results present.