Although family production is responsible for about 80% of fresh food in terms of value, until now, little analysis had been dedicated to its environmental impact.
This lack motivated a joint study between the Faculty of Agronomy of the UBA (FAUBA) and the Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA) of Uruguay, aimed at determining the environmental footprint of these productive systems.
The research arose due to the lack of information and sectoral policies in Argentina and was carried out in Uruguay, where family farms were surveyed and compared with non-family farms. The work relied on satellite data covering 70% of the agricultural area of the neighboring country.
A global and regional overview
The study recalls that 98% of the world’s agricultural establishments are family-owned, covering between 53% and 75% of agricultural lands.
In South America, they represent 82% of the farms, although they only cover 18% of the cultivated area. In Uruguay, in particular, they constitute 36% of the establishments and just 7% of the agricultural land.
Compelling results
The findings were clear: in 96.8% of the comparisons, the environmental performance of family units was superior to that of non-family ones.
According to Hernán Dieguez, a FAUBA professor, these farms maintain more areas of natural habitats such as forests and grasslands, better conserve soils, are more biodiverse, and offer more ecosystem services.
Additionally, it was observed that family farms are more resilient: in the face of agricultural expansion, the provision of ecosystem services was less affected than in non-family farms. The results were published in the scientific journal Agricultural Systems.
Rootedness and multifunctionality
One of the most relevant conclusions is that rootedness to the land and its generational transfer are key factors for better environmental performance. Family farms promote multifunctional landscapes that provide varied goods and environmental, social, and economic benefits. They not only produce food and basic products but also contribute to erosion control, flood prevention, and soil formation, among other ecosystem services.
Dieguez clarified that this does not mean that extensive farming cannot be sustainable, as many producers practice good management. However, he emphasized the importance of closely analyzing the management and use of resources in each farm.
The challenge in Argentina
The professor regretted that the study cannot be replicated in Argentina due to the lack of public information about the type of producer working each plot. He pointed out that many Argentine regions are similar to Uruguayan ones in physical, biological, and productive aspects, which would allow valuable comparisons.
This difficulty is compounded by the disarticulation of public policies supporting family agricultural production. Programs like the National Institute of Family, Peasant, and Indigenous Agriculture, ProHuerta, or the National Directorate of Agroecology were defunded or emptied, compromising INTA’s ability to provide technical assistance to small producers.
Study conclusions
The study highlights the need to invest in public policies that support family production. Beyond the income that each producer may obtain, this type of farming provides collective benefits, both in food provision and in the conservation and resilience of agroecosystems. Recognizing its value is essential to advancing towards more sustainable and equitable productive systems.
