Socioeconomic and environmental trade-offs for multifunctional landscapes: rice-fish Bac Kan

Elisabeth SimeltonIn collaboration with: Dam Viet Bac, Ngo The An, Nguyen Thi Hoa

Email: e.simelton@cgiar.orgFunding: FORMAS Sweden

Technical workshop on Methods and Experiences in Climate Change Research and Assessments in Fisheries and Aquaculture

Hanoi Sep 6, 2013

Rice-fish culture

Food Security

Fish + No significant rice yield loss

Fish sells +10.000VND/kg

Socioeconomic & environmental synergies

Biological weed control

Less fertiliser (NPK)

Biological pest control

Less fish disease

Tastier fish meat than pond

Sensitive to extreme eventsCold spell (tilapia)Water stress (flood/storm, drought)

Adaptation?

New rice varieties Mechanisation

More ponds less rice-fish

Polluted water kills fish

Theft

Mitigation?

Excess manure input? Over-fertilisation/methane emissions? Higher labour requirement?

STRENGTHS RISKS

Source: Focus Group Discussions 2012-13; Literature review

Rice-fish

• Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS-FAO)

• Autonomous adoption: widespread without Government/project support

• Multi-functional system – economic diversification (WB)– diversification of environmental functions (MEA)

• Climate-Smart Agriculture (FAO, CGIAR)– Food security & livelihood improvement– Adapted for climate change– Mitigation (sequestration/reduced emission)

What are the barriers for adoption of rice-fish?

Outline

• Study site, Data & methods

• 3 policies influencing rice fish (Bac Kan)

• Who does rice-fish? Why? Why not?

• Policy recommendations

• Research gaps

• Adoption barriers - 3 lessons learned

• Conclusions

Study site: Bac Kan province

• Survey I: Longitudinal study n=23

• Focus group discussions n=12– DISTRICTS: Na Ri, Ha Vi– METHOD: Participatory ranking

• Survey II: Household survey n=285 Households: – DISTRICTS: Pac Nam, Ngan Son– METHOD: Trade-off : Pairwise

correlation • Households types

• Mono-rice (MR) and rice-fish (RF)• Food self-sufficient (FSS) – non self-

sufficient (NSS)30 km

40 km

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

SOC

IO-E

CO

NO

MIC

BEN

EFIT

S

Low High

Low

Hig

h

PES (Decree 99-2010)

National Food Security Policy

PAM (Reforestation programmes 327)

1980s- 1990s

Viet Nam: 3 policies influencing multi-functional land use & food security

Source: HH Survey I

Ecosystem Services Rating

Ecosystem ServicesFarmers rate

MR RF

Provisioning

Food provision 5 6

Economic value 5 6

Fuel provision 0.5 1

Clean water 0 2

Regulating

Shade 0 1.5

Natural pest control 0 3.5

Resilience to extreme weather events 1 0

Supporting

Enhance soil fertility 0.5 2

Soil water content 0 1

Prevent soil erosion 1 1

Biodiversity 0.5 2

Cultural Landscape beauty 0.5 1.5

Source: Focus group discussions 2013 (mixed gender, mixed RF/MR farmers)

Household types

n=285Rice Fish (RF-)Cá ruộng

Mono-rice (MR-) Lúa không

Tot

Food Self-Sufficient (-FSS) 53 160 213

Food Non-Self Sufficient (-NSS) 11 61 72

Total 64 221

Source: HH Survey II

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

RF - NSS MR - NSS MR - FSS RF - FSS

he

ctar

e

Rice Area Upland Crop

Intercrop Tree-Based

Forest Plant Forest Natural

Farm contexts

• Food sufficiency is possible despite smaller total areas

• Non-self sufficient HHs have large shares natural forest (no economic value), smaller forest plantation areas implications for participation in PES?

• Food self-sufficiency is associated with land use, not total area

Non-self sufficient -- Self sufficient

Rice-fish

Mono rice

Source: HH Survey II (n=285)

Paddy field characteristics

• Food self-sufficiency associated with paddy area, irrigated share (2 crops/year) - not total farm area

• Mono-rice households have cash crop instead of fish

• RF-NSS least irrigation, mechanisation, cash crop of all

RF - NSS

MR -…0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

he

ctar

e

RF - NSS MR - NSSMR - FSS RF - FSS

Source: HH Survey II

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

SOC

IO-E

CO

NO

MIC

BEN

EFIT

S

Low High

Low

Hig

h

PES (Decree 99-2010)

National Food Security Policy 2010

PAM (Reforestation programmes 327)

1980s- 1990s

Bac Kan: 3 policies influencing household land use & food security

Source: HH Survey I n=23

Ecosystem Services Rating

Ecosystem ServicesFarmers rate PES

MR RFDecree

99Poten-

tial

Provisioning

Food provision 5 6

Economic value 5 6

Fuel provision 0.5 1

Clean water 0 2 X +++

Regulating

Shade 0 1.5

Natural pest control 0 3.5 +++

Resilience to extreme weather events 1 0

Supporting

Enhance soil fertility 0.5 2 +

Soil water content 0 1

Prevent soil erosion 1 1 X ++

Biodiversity 0.5 2 X +

Cultural Landscape beauty 0.5 1.5 X +

Source: Focus group discussions 2013 (mixed gender, mixed RF/MR farmers)

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

SOC

IO-E

CO

NO

MIC

BEN

EFIT

S

Low High

Low

Hig

h

PES (Decree 99-2010)

National Food Security Policy

PAM (Reforestation programmes 327)

1980s- 1990s

Recommendations for land use & food security policy

Source: HH Survey I n=23

Rice-fish: 3 knowledge gaps

• Adaptation: Reducing exposure to extreme events– Flood risk (storm) – Cold spell – alternatives to tilapia?

• Food security: consequences of national rice food security targets on integrated systems– Hybrid rice More intensive agriculture less rice fish

• Environmental Services: Linking PES to all land uses– Mitigation: Nitrogen leaching? Methane emission? – Clean water: Agriculture water pollutants – Soil erosion: paddy fields are sedimentation traps– Ecotourism

Lessons learned: 3 adoption principlesmultifunctional farming system

• Additional component(s) add value, do not interfere with current land uses on the farm or land use policies

• Economic and environmental risks and benefits are well known and rational to the farmer

• Flexibility. The new system generates annual outputs and enables multiple possible outcomes

Conclusions

• Rice fish is an important component of food self sufficient households– Provides food (quantity & quality) – Generates income

• Rice-fish has socio-economic and biophysical synergies– Diversifies income and land use – Negotiable within (most) current land use policies– Potential PES for all land uses

• Potential trade-offs – National food security policies (intensified paddy culture)– Mitigation - Uncertain GHG-emissions?– Adaptation - Uncertain under extreme events

Look at The Talking Toolkit for focus group discussions on adaptation

http://worldagroforestry.org/regions/southeast_asia/vietnam/products/tools/talking-toolkit

Contact:Elisabeth SimeltonE.SIMELTON@CGIAR.ORG