Description
|
In many studies undertaken in pastoral landscapes, the need to realize environmentally friendly practices has become evident. Unfortunately, progress in this area has been slow. As so, it is necessary to undertake studies that document why farmers are not adopting biodiversity-friendly practices. In this project, both internal and external factors were studied that affect the adoption of silvopastoral systems (SSP) and biodiversity-friendly land uses. This study worked with 53 producers within the project “Focus in silvopastoral systems for integrated ecosystem management” conducted by the CATIE-GEF-BM-Nitlapan inter-institutional organization in Matiguás, which located in the central region of Nicaragua and dedicated to livestock management. These producers were classified into large, medium, and small and fell under the following three study treatments: control (C), payments for environmental services (PSA), and payments environmental services with technical assistance (PAT). To study the internal barriers, community capitals were marked and changes that occurred between 2003 and 2006 among the different silvopastoral systems and biodiversity-friendly land uses were evaluated with the involvement of the above-named project. In the community capitals study, it was determined that among the farms studied, the small producers possessed less financial, political, human, and social capitals but equal natural and cultural capitals, which was owed to the intervention of the project. The medium producers had strong capitals that were very close to those of the large producers, which were found to be in the best condition among the three production types studied. The majority (51%) of the institutions present in the area were non-governmental organizations (ONGs) that worked with small and medium producers that were, from the perspective of the ONGs, the most vulnerable. Among the ONGs, 50% wo rked with donations, and the other 50% worked with funds from other institutions paying low interest rates for the loans. The other 49% of the institutions were private, state, and cooperative and worked with private and communal funds. In conclusion, the different payment treatments directly strengthened some community capitals. In turn, it is necessary to work directly with the small producers that are already limited, both biophysically and financially, in their ability to make changes according to the environment. The results the institutional study suggested that the majority of the of the institutions are ONGs, that work in function of profitability, make loans to small and medium producers with funds on which the ONGs must pay interest. This reality forces them to make only short-term loans, which limits inversions to conservation-oriented endeavours that would require longer periods to recover the inversion.
|