I will talk about the subject - Ecosystem services – but with focus on livestock production as it is my main area of study. Apart from that, Agriculture and Livestock should be always integrated if we want to talk about sustainability (Herrero et al 2010).
Question 1 – firstly we need to change the way that livestock/agriculture have been seen by researchers and policy makers. From my view, instead to focus only on the crop or livestock at farm level the look should be broad, at landscape level. Policies and technological approaches should cover the landscape and later arrive at farm level. It could be the correct approach to maximize the efficiency. As an example, when you improve biodiversity including trees, shrubs, grasses and animal not only the animal production would be increased but also the carbon sequestration, water production, welfare, wood production, fertilizer cycling etc. However in some areas of the landscape just trees will be planted (high slopes) and no pasture. So in these areas carbon will be increased, rain impact minimized, low erosion effect which will benefit farmers and other users of the environment. Both are approach the cover large areas (landscape) but also small areas (field/farm) which would promote benefits for both.
Question 2 – I believe that policies which are defined from the bottom (farm) to the top (government) level could conciliate the needs from field and landscape. So if farmers that are able to produce milk without fertilize (less NO2 emission) using faeces as source of nutrients, more trees per hectare, no ivermectim, streams protections and more biodiversity (flora and fauna) they should deserve payment for environment services. Therefore, farmers that are playing in different way (high intensive system) could produce more milk/ha but with negative impact on the environment should not be allowed to receive environment services by the municipality management which are taking care of the landscape. The work developed by CATIE (Costa Rica), CIPAV (Colombia) and Nicaragua are good examples that could be followed. In Brazil farmers that are protecting wellspring are able to receive payment from the government. In US there are good example of water spring protection which gives benefits for users in NY (landscape level). The farmers are not able to increase milk production but they are compensated by the way that they are protecting the rivers or producing water.
Questions 3 – I will leave for Europeans colleagues to answer
Проф. Rogerio Mauricio
Congratulations for the initiative. The climate change effects on the earth needs to be tackle using sustainable approaches which are also in line with the SDGs. Therefore, from my perspectives, the agriculture and livestock sector should be based on agroecology or sustainable livestock systems (e.g. silvopastoral systems) and also part of grant programmes that target migrants, migrant-sending households and returnees. Otherwise, the negative effects caused by green revolution (agrochemicals and fertilizers) will persist and it is time to rethink these practices (and do not potentialize it by doing business as usual...), especially for migrants that will start a new life somewhere.