The Brazilian Semi-Arid region faces desertification, biodiversity loss and social vulnerability. This study mapped 50 family agroecosystems using the LUME method and ecological-economic indicators. It shows that diversified agroecosystems, in complex and well-managed landscapes, with water, food and fodder storage, are more resilient to climate change and desertification. Agroecological systems achieved a benefit-cost ratio of 2–3:1. Conserving and restoring the Caatinga can generate US$ 1,000–1,600/ha/year in climate assets. Ecological diversity and social cohesion sustain resilience to drought.
Background
Drylands cover a large part of the globe and are home to socio-economic exclusion. The Brazilian Semi-Arid Region (SAB) covers >1.4 million km² and is home to ~31 million people, mostly engaged in family farming. Climatic irregularity, with concentrated rainfall and long dry spells, combined with the conversion of the Caatinga and soil degradation, fuels pockets of desertification that already cover ~100,000 km². Degraded soils lose fertility and carbon, reducing water infiltration and retention, affecting production, income and food security; biodiversity declines and social vulnerability worsens.Despite this situation, the Caatinga is the largest seasonally dry tropical forest in the world and has high climate efficiency: it sequesters 1.5–7.7 tCO₂/ha/year, with ~70% of the carbon in the soil. When managed sustainably, it becomes a strategic asset for mitigation, adaptation and income generation. However, for decades, irrigated monocultures, energy megaprojects and predatory exploitation have prevailed, widening inequalities and pressures on drylands.In contrast, communities have developed coexistence practices: recaatingamento (reforestation), agroforestry systems (SAFs), productive backyards, seed banks, social water infrastructure (cisterns/ponds) and reciprocity networks. These strategies show that diversified agroecosystems can transform climate variability into socio-ecological resilience.This study, led by INSA with MPA, universities, NGOs and communities, starts from the question: how can we make the “drought economy” that already operates in these territories visible, measurable and financeable? The LUME method (ecological-economic analysis), semi-structured interviews and three integrative instruments (timeline, eco-economic flows, systemic qualities) were applied, combined with quantitative indicators (species diversity/richness, energy and protein balance/efficiency, water and fodder stocks, nutrient recirculation) and statistical-spatial analyses (non-linear normalisation, PCA, minimum data sets and weighted additive resilience indices).This analytical framework rigorously demonstrates that resilience springs from diversity, the living landscape, and care for the land. Agroecosystems do not exist in a social vacuum: they result from the co-evolution of communities and nature, sustained by social infrastructures capable of absorbing shocks. In SAB, climate resilience stems from plant biodiversity, ecological soil and water management, and social cohesion. In short: agroecology is about living in communion — preserving, caring for and walking together — articulating three central strategies: (i) mobilisation and training to store wealth for use in droughts; (ii) reduction of losses and efficient use of resources; (iii) strengthening of communication/solidarity networks. This basis guides investments and public policies.Photo by BANDGAR RISHIKESH
Actions taken
Decision and objectives. Map and compare resilient family agroecosystems to: (i) identify mechanisms of socio-ecological resilience; (ii) measure technical, economic, social and environmental performance; (iii) translate evidence into policy recommendations and innovative financial mechanisms. Technical leadership by INSA, in co-management with MPA; universities and NGOs contributed methods, data and training.Sample and territorial scope. Selection of 50 family farming units in PI, SE, PE and BA, covering combinations of subsystems (backyards, SAFs, fields, livestock farms, managed Caatinga areas), different levels of dependence on external inputs and social water infrastructure.Methodology. Application of LUME with field immersions and two rounds of interviews; three integrative instruments: (a) timeline (structural changes and shocks); (b) eco-economic flows (inputs, outputs, recycling, self-consumption, markets and reciprocity); (c) systemic qualities (functional diversity, autonomy, energy efficiency, care and cooperation). Indicators: productive biodiversity, people potentially fed (energy/protein), energy balances/costs, water/forage/seed stocks, organic matter, soil cover, animal integration. Analyses: non-linear normalisation, PCA, minimum data sets and weighted additive resilience indices (IRAw/IRAIwf), as well as spatial analyses (clustering, hotspots).Social participation and roles.– INSA: scientific coordination; design/validation of indicators; statistics and geospatial data; coordination with PAN-Brazil/UNCCD and sectoral policies.– MPA and communities: selection of families; participatory collection; social validation; mobilisation of young people and women; local feedback.– Universities/NGOs: methodological support; training; knowledge governance; dissemination.Sequence of decisions. (1) Territorial selection and sampling; (2) Qualitative collection (structure/functioning); (3) Consolidation of flows and qualities; (4) Quantitative collection and climate series; (5) Statistical/spatial modelling and index construction; (6) Feedback workshops (adjustments and local agreements); (7) Summary of recommendations and financing portfolio (public procurement, water programmes, instruments for ecosystem services).Alternatives and prioritisation. Comparison between simplified vs. diversified systems; testing combinations of subsystems and degrees of autonomy. Prioritisation of systems with high functional diversity, livestock-agroforestry integration, soil cover and social water infrastructure, as they exhibit greater ecological reciprocity, income stability and lower production risk.Financial mechanisms analysed.– Public procurement (PAA/PNAE): distribution and fair pricing.– Social water infrastructure: cisterns/reservoirs as climate insurance.– Inclusive climate instrument: design of Social Carbon Credit backed by carbon sequestration (biomass/soil) from the Caatinga, with public scientific MRV and participatory certification to ensure traceability, fairness and scale.
Outcomes
Implementation and challenges. An unprecedented qualitative and quantitative database was constructed. Challenges: interstate logistics, heterogeneity of records, and low youth participation. Mitigations: local MPA teams, continuous feedback, practical training, and community agreements.Technical and ecological results. Diversified systems (≥8 subsystems) showed greater resilience and soil health, with water/forage/seed stocks and nutrient/energy recirculation. Reforestation and SAFs increased total biomass by ~85%; areas with trees retained up to 100 t of soil/ha/year, reducing erosion and fertility loss. Managed Caatinga maintained 1.5–7.7 tCO₂/ha/year of sequestration, reinforcing its role as a carbon sink and ‘vault’ (soil + biomass).Economic results. Agroecosystems achieved a cost-benefit ratio of 2–3:1. The “agroecologisation index × profitability” analysis identified four types of systems: (1) High profitability but low agroecologisation – Systems that still follow more conventional logic and depend on external inputs; (2) Systems with high agroecologisation and high profitability – the most sustainable and autonomous; (3) Systems with low profitability and low agroecologisation - the most vulnerable systems, which lack technical support and agroecological transition; and (4) systems with high agroecologisation but still low profitability - i.e. systems on the right track but needing support to access markets, add value and generate income. Public procurement (PAA/PNAE) stabilised cash flow and enabled reinvestment in low-energy management, value addition and local markets.Social and gender outcomes. The disclosure of care work and social participation highlighted the high contribution of women to added value and day-to-day governance (organisation, quality, markets, care for common goods). Social capital was strengthened (exchanges, collective efforts, seed networks). Youth remains a critical challenge for succession and innovation, requiring specific training programmes, credit and access to land/technology.Impacts on public policy and finance. Evidence supports adaptation and desertification control policies based on agroecology + social water infrastructure + public procurement. It is proposed to institutionalise regulated Social Carbon Credit, with public MRV and participatory certification, to directly remunerate families and communities that conserve/restore the Caatinga. Estimates indicate R$ 5–8 thousand/ha/year in climate assets, creating robust economic cases for the “drought economy” and attracting climate funds, PES and impact finance.Sustainability and next steps. Perpetuity requires three pillars: (i) institutionalised metrics and participatory governance (OPACCs, observatories); (ii) expansion of social water infrastructure as basic insurance; (iii) stable and inclusive financial mechanisms (PSA, regulated climate credit, public procurement). Next steps: expand time series and remote monitoring; price co-benefits (water, biodiversity, health); create training tracks for young people and women; and replicate the model in other dry biomes.Winners/losers. Winners: peasant families (income/stability), women (recognition), ecosystems (soil/water/biodiversity) and public policies (evidence and cost-effectiveness). Potential losers: input-intensive chains and low-efficiency extensive models, in the face of the rise of autonomous systems with low energy costs and high socio-environmental value.
Lessons Learned
Diversification generates resilience.Systems with multiple subsystems and functional redundancy maintain production and income during droughts, thanks to water/forage stocks, soil cover, animal integration, and nutrient/energy recirculation. Diversity creates ‘ecological insurance’ that reduces production risk and stabilises the system.
Citizen science legitimises decisions.The LUME method, combined with community validation and statistical-spatial analyses, qualified indicators and built trust. This combination strengthened policy recommendations and investments based on evidence and social legitimacy, facilitating adherence and territorial governance.
Paid social water infrastructure.Cisterns, ponds, and water collection systems increase water security, reduce losses and costs, and enhance management efficiency. They function as basic ‘climate insurance,’ increasing productivity, income, and soil health, as well as enabling backyards and SAFs.
Public procurement boosts income.PAA/PNAE guarantee a stable market and fair prices, enabling reinvestment in low-energy practices, value addition and local networks. By reducing dependence on intermediaries, they strengthen economic autonomy and territorial food systems.
Inclusive climate credit scales up.A regulated Social Carbon Credit, with public MRV and participatory certification, remunerates ecosystem services in the Caatinga (soil/biomass), channelling R$ 5–8 thousand/ha/year to those who conserve. It generates robust economic cases, climate justice and replicability in other dry biomes.
