Barriers and strategies for scaling up livestock agroforestry systems in the Colombian amazon piedmont
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rccp.v38n1a5Keywords:
barriers, cattle, livestock agroforestry, livestock reconversion, silvopastoral system, sustainable livestock, sustainable practices, sustainable production, sustainability, technology adoptionAbstract
Background: Silvopastoral systems (SPS) are sustainable livestock production systems with multiple benefits. Nevertheless, its adoption has been limited. Objective: To identify the barriers encountered by farmers to adopt SPS, considering the perceptions of producers and the strategies to promote its adoption as a tool for sustainable cattle ranching in the Amazonian foothills of Caquetá province, Colombia. Methods: Experts on sustainable cattle ranching from public and private organizations implementing projects in Caquetá were called to contribute to participatory rural appraisal workshops and focus groups. In these workshops also participated producers from the south of the province with three to five years of experience in establishment SPS, and producers from north of the province who were just starting with SPS. Results: The experts recognized 13 practices promoted by institutions for sustainable cattle ranching. These alternatives were categorized into pasture management, livestock agroforestry, conservation, and renewable energy systems. They also identified 21 barriers that limit the adoption of these alternatives, which were grouped into skills and knowledge, social, economic, environmental, and technical and operational barriers. The cattle farmers prioritized and established the advantages and disadvantages of the four main SPS. In response to the barriers, 22 scaling-up strategies were identified and classified into five categories contributing to promote the adoption of SPS. Conclusions: Organizations promoting sustainable practices for cattle ranching and farmers in the Caquetá foothills recognize the importance of SPS, but there are still barriers related to knowledge, implementation costs, environmental, and cultural conditions that need to be addressed to increase its adoption.
Downloads
References
Amare D, Wondie M, Mekuria W, Darr D. Agroforestry of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia: Practices and Benefits. Small-scale Forestry 2019; 18(1):39-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-018-9405-6
Alvarado C, Barnes AP, Sepúlveda I, Garratt M, Thompson J, Escobar-Tello. Examining factors for the adoption of silvopastoral agroforestry in the Colombian Amazon. Scientific Reports 2023; 13(12252). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39038-0
Alvarado C, Barnes AP, Sepúlveda I, Garratt M, Thompson J, Escobar-Tello. Transitioning to silvopastoral forestry. Testing the common drivers of farmer adoption in the Colombian Amazon. Research Square 2022; PREPRINT (Version 1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2404072/v1
Bettles J, Battisti D, Cook-Patton S, Kroeger T, Spector J, Wolff N, Masuda Y. Agroforestry and non-state actors: A review. Forest policy and economics 2021; 130(102538). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102538
Broom DM, Galindo FA, Murgueitio E. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proc Biol Sci 2013; 280(1771). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2025
Buitrago ME, Ospina LA, Narváez W. Sistemas silvopastoriles: alternativa en la mitigación y adaptación de la producción bovina al cambio climático. Bol cient mus hist nat univ caldas 2018; 22(1):31-42. 10.17151/bccm.2018.22.1.2
Bussoni A, Juan C, Fernández E, Boscana M, Cubbage F, Bentancur O. Integrated beef and wood production in Uruguay: potential and limitations. Agroforest Syst 2015; 89(6):1107-1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9839-1
Cabrera E. Actualización de Cifras de Monitoreo de La Superficie de Bosque – Año 2021. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales-IDEAM, Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible 2022:23. http://documentacion.ideam.gov.co/openbiblio/bvirtual/023983/SMByC.pdf
Calle A, Montagnini F, Zuluaga AF. Farmer’s perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindío, Colombia. Bois et forets des tropiques 2009; 300(2):79-94.
Calle Z, Murgueitio E, Chará J, Molina CH, Zuluaga AF, Calle A. A. Strategy for Scaling-Up Intensive Silvopastoral Systems in Colombia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2013; 32(7):677-693. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.817338
Castro A, Buritica A, Holmann F, Ngaiwi M, Quintero M, Solarte A, González, C. Unlocking sustainable livestock production potential through paddock division and gender inclusivity. Research Square 2024; PREPRINT (Version 1): 1-29. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3592285/v1
Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica. Caquetá: Conflicto y Memoria. 1st ed.; 2013.
Clavero T, Suárez J. Limitaciones en la adopción de los sistemas silvopastoriles en Latinoamérica. Pastos y Forrajes 2006; 29(3):1-6.
Dagang ABK, Nair PK. Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agroforest Syst 2003; 59(2):149-155. 10.1023/A:1026394019808
Escobar J, Bonilla-Jimenez FI. Grupos focales: una guía conceptual y metodológica. Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos de Psicología 2011; 9(1):51-67.
Etshekape PG, Atangana AR, Khasa DP. Tree planting in urban and peri-urban of Kinshasa: Survey of factors facilitating agroforestry adoption. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2018; 30:12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.015
Fajardo MY, Facundo G. Costos de conversión en los procesos de producción de ganadería tradicional al sistema silvopastoril en fincas ganaderas del Municipio de Florencia, Morelia y Belén del Departamento del Caquetá. FACCEA 2014a; 4(1):30-40.
Flores-González A, Jiménez-Ferrer G, Castillo-Santiago M, De Oña CR, Covaleda S. Good livestock practices: Adoption of technologies in the rio perlas gorge, Ocosingo, Chiapas Mexico. Trop Subtrop Agroecosystems 2019; 22(1):87-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.2670
Frey GE, Fassola HE, Pachas AN, et al. Perceptions of silvopasture systems among adopters in northeast Argentina. Agricultural Systems 2012; 105(1):21-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.09.001
Garbach K, Lubell M, DeClerck FAJ. Payment for Ecosystem Services: The roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2012; 156:27-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.017
Geilfus F. 80 Herramientas para el desarrollo participativo: diagnóstico, planificación, monitoreo evaluación. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacion para la Agricultura (IICA) 2009. https://repositorio.iica.int/handle/11324/4129
Hurley T, Brown J. Conversational Leadership: Thinking Together for a Change. The Systems Thinker 2016; 20(9):2-7.
Ibrahim M, Villanueva C, Casasola F, Rojas J. Sistemas silvopastoriles como una herramienta para el mejoramiento de la productividad y restauración de la integridad ecológica de paisajes ganaderos. Pastos y Forrajes 2006; 29(4).
Jara-Rojas R, Russy S, Roco L, Fleming-Muñoz D, Engler A. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Agroforestry Practices: Insights from Silvopastoral Systems of Colombia. Forests 2020; 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/f11060648
Jiménez JG. Ordenamiento Productivo y Social de La Propiedad En La Amazonia: Casos Caquetá y Guaviare Estrategias y Desarrollo. Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas SINCHI; 2019.
Lee S, Bonatti M, Löhr K, et al. Adoption potentials and barriers of silvopastoral system in Colombia: Case of Cundinamarca region. Cogent Environmental Science 2020; 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2020.1823632
Mahecha L. Importancia de los sistemas silvopastoriles y principales limitantes para su implementación en la ganadería colombiana. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias 2003; 16(1):11-18.
Murad CA, Pearse J. Landsat study of deforestation in the Amazon region of Colombia: Departments of Caquetá and Putumayo. Remote Sensing Applications. Society and Environment 2018; 11:161-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2018.07.003
Murgueitio E. Incentivos para los sistemas silvopastoriles en América Latina. Avances en investigación agropecuaria 2009; 13(1):3-20.
Murgueitio E, Cuellar P, Ibrahim M, et al. Adopción de Sistemas Agroforestales Pecuarios Adoption of Agroforestry Systems for Animal Production. Pastos y Forrajes 2006; 29(4):365.
Murgueitio E. Sistemas agroforestales para la producción ganadera en Colombia. Pastos y Forrajes 2000; 23(3).
Murgueitio E, Chará J, Barahona R, Cuartas C, Naranjo J. Los sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos (SSPi), herramienta de mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático. Tropical and subtropical Agroecosystems 2014; 17(3):501-507.
Murgueitio E, Chará JD, Solarte AJ, Uribe F, Zapata C, Rivera JE. Agroforestería Pecuaria y Sistemas Silvopastoriles Intensivos (SSPi) para la adaptación ganadera al cambio climático con sostenibilidad. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu 2013; 26:313-316. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rccp.324845
Navas A. Importancia de los sistemas silvopastoriles en la reducción del estrés calórico en sistemas de producción ganadera tropical. Rev Med Vet 2010; (19):113-122. https://doi.org/10.19052/mv.782
Opdenbosch H, Hansson H. Farmers’ willingness to adopt silvopastoral systems: Investigating cattle producers’ compensation claims and attitudes using a contingent valuation approach. Agroforestry Systems 2022; 97: 133-149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-022-00793-0
Osorio-García AM, Paz L, Howland F, et al. Can an innovation platform support a local process of climate-smart agriculture implementation? A case study in Cauca, Colombia. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 2019; 44(3):378-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1629373
Pagiola S, Agostini P, Gobbi J, de-Haan C, Ibrahim M, Murgueitio E, Ramírez E, Rosales M, Ruíz J. Paying for Biodiversity Conservation Services. mred 2005; 25(3):206-211. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025[0206:PFBCS]2.0.CO;2
Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 2006; 46(11):1407-1424. 10.1071/EA05037
Ramírez B, Lavelle P, Orjuela J, Villanueva O. Caracterización de fincas ganaderas y adopción de sistemas agroforestales como propuesta de manejo de suelos en Caquetá, Colombia. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu 2012; 25(3):391-401. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rccp.324782
Rizo-Chavarría C, Cascante-Carvajal C, Imbach-Hermida A, Tobar-López D. Perception of livestock farmers on ecosystem services provision in the livestock production activity, Esparza, Costa Rica. Revista Forestal Mesoamericana Kurú 2022; 19 (45): 38-46. https://doi.org/10.18845/rfmk.v19i45.6324
Russo R. Reflexiones sobre los sistemas silvopastoriles. Pastos y Forrajes 2015; 38(2):157-161.
Salas JM, Leos JA, Sagarnaga M, Zavala-Pineda MJ. Adopción de tecnología por productores beneficiarios del progasma de estimulos a la productividad ganadera (PROGAN) en México. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu 2013; 4(2):243-254.
Salazar CA, Riaño E. Perfiles Urbanos En La Amazonia Colombiana. 1st ed.; 2016.
Salcedo W, Toral J, Pérez E, Piñeiro A, Jiménez G. Level of adoption of silvopastoral techniques in the Sierra Madre de Chiapas, Mexico. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 2022; 25(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.4001
Sandoval D, Fernández JC, González C, Solarte A, Holmann F, Quintero M, Castro A, Zapata C. Reporte Técnico: Factores Que Influyen En La Adopción de Sistemas Silvopastoriles En El Piedemonte Andino-Amazónico Del Departamento Del Caquetá, Colombia. Publicación CIAT No 517. CIAT, CIPAV, Patrimonio Natural 2021. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/116242
SINCHI. División político-administrativa de la Amazonia colombiana. Published online 2017. https://siatac.co/la-amazonia-colombiana/
Rodríguez T, Bonatti M, Löhr K, Lana M, Del Río M, Sieber S. Analyzing influencing factors to scale up agroforestry systems in Colombia: A comparative ex-ante assessment of cacao farming and cattle ranching in two regions. Agroforest Syst 2022; 96:435-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-022-00730-1
Solarte A, Rico A, Zapata C, Chará J, Murgueitio E. Retos para escalar los sistemas silvopastoriles en Caquetá. DeCarne 2022;58(6):54-57. https://es.calameo.com/read/002033190230a63fc9523
Tafur O, Hurtado E, Murgueitio E, Pedraza G, Gacharna N, Zambrano F, Ortiz L. Leche ambientalmente sostenible. Fundación CIPAV; 2011.
Torrijos R. Cifras de Contexto Ganadero Caquetá 2022. Comité Departamental de Ganaderos del Caquetá 2022. https://issuu.com/rafaeltorrijos/docs/contexto_2022_imp
Useche D, Harvey CA, DeClerck F. Implicaciones sociales, económicas y ecológicas para la implementación de sistemas silvopastoriles como estrategia para la conservación de la biodiversidad en paisajes ganaderos tropicales. Agroforestería de las Américas 2011; (48):84-93.
Vargas-de la Mora AL, Castillo-Santiago M, Randhir TO, Hernández-Moreno M del C, Cach-Pérez MJ, Camacho-Valdéz V. Conocer para mejorar: factores que influyen en la transición hacia sistemas silvopastoriles en la costa de Chiapas. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 2021; 24(3):1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.3689
Zapata C, Robalino J, Solarte A. Influencia del Pago por Servicios Ambientales y otras variables biofísicas y socioeconómicas en la adopción de sistemas silvopastoriles a nivel de finca. Livestock Research for Rural Development 2015; 27(63).
Zepeda RM, Velasco ME, Nahed J, Hernández A, Martínez JJ. Adopción de sistemas silvopastoriles y contexto sociocultural de los productores: apoyos y limitantes. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu 2016; 7(4):471-488.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The authors enable RCCP to reprint the material published in it.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions, and will allow the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
