Development of a Conceptual Model for Agropastoral Farming System

1 Development of a Conceptual Model for Agropastoral Farming System Conceptual Modeling Report : Version 0.0 (29/11/24) UMR SELMET : Fabien Stark, Amandine Lurette PAS-AGRO-PAS PRIMA project [2023-2026] 2 1 Table des matières 2 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Brief overview of the deliverable's objectives. ....................................................................... 3 2.2 Methodology applied / Key outcomes or conceptual deliverables. ....................................... 3 3 Background and Problem Statement ...................................................... Erreur ! Signet non défini. 3.1 General Context: The Importance of Agropastoral Livestock in the Northern and Southern Mediterranean ............................................................................................ Erreur ! Signet non défini. 3.2 Problem Statement: Current Challenges Facing Agropastoral Systems in the Mediterranean Erreur ! Signet non défini. 3.3 Expected Outcomes: Development of a Conceptual Model ................................................... 4 4 Methodological Framework ............................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Approach Used: Selmet team expertise and data from partners cases studies. .................... 7 5 Description of the Conceptual Model ............................................................................................. 8 5.1 Key Definitions and Assumptions: Present the fundamental concepts (livestock, agropastoralism, sustainability, etc.). ................................................................................................. 8 5.2 Model Structure: Key system components and interactions .................................................. 8 6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 23 7 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 25 3 2 Executive Summary 2.1 Brief overview of the deliverable's objectives. The value of a common conceptual model for representing an agropastoral livestock system in collaborative projects Developing a shared conceptual model among project partners is essential for effectively representing an agropastoral livestock system. Such a model serves as a unifying framework that integrates diverse perspectives, ensuring that all stakeholders—researchers, policymakers, farmers, and other practitioners—operate with a common understanding of the system's components and interactions. First, a shared model enhances interdisciplinary collaboration by harmonizing terminologies and conceptual approaches. Agropastoral systems are inherently complex, involving ecological, economic, and social dimensions. A common model fosters clear communication, minimizing misunderstandings and enabling seamless integration of expertise from various fields. Second, it supports consistent data collection and analysis. By agreeing on key variables and their relationships, partners can ensure that their methodologies are aligned, leading to comparable results across different study sites or regions. This is particularly important in collaborative projects involving diverse geographies or research methods. Third, a conceptual model promotes systemic thinking (Dedieu et al., 2008), helping partners identify critical linkages, feedback loops, and potential leverage points for interventions. This holistic perspective is crucial for designing sustainable and resilient strategies that address the intertwined challenges of productivity, resource management, and community livelihoods. Finally, a common framework strengthens stakeholder engagement by providing a transparent and accessible representation of the system (Voinov et al., 2016). This facilitates dialogue, fosters mutual trust, and empowers local communities to actively contribute to decision-making processes. In conclusion, a shared conceptual model allows partners to combine their strengths, achieve greater coherence, and deliver impactful, sustainable outcomes. 2.2 Methodology applied / Key outcomes or conceptual deliverables. This work is based on the task 2.1 from the WP2 (Diagnosis of the agro-ecosystem/socioeconomic traits of the agro-pastoral production systems) of the PRIMA project PAS-AGRO-PAS (The Making of Fragile Agro-ecosystems Productive, Adaptive and Sustainable: Multifunctional Agro-pastoralism). The objective of the PAS-AGRO-PAS project is to increase productivity, adaptiveness, sustainability and profitability of agro-pastoral systems in eight Mediterranean countries, through a systemic approach leveraged on the multifunctionality of resilient agro-pastoralism. The systemic approach consists of a farm-to-global scale integrated evaluation interlinking agro-ecosystem, socioeconomic components and information system to identify and overcome the stressors affecting agro-pastoralists’ viability, with views to implementing strategies that redirect agro-pastoralism from fragile, subsistence-oriented systems towards resilient, climate-change adaptive, more commercially-oriented systems. Multifunctionality alludes to the wide range of goods/services alongside food that will be addressed in this 4 project, such as the maintenance of natural rangelands, the renewal of vegetation, the maintenance of ecological integrity, the preservation of endangered breeds, the valorisation of typical products and the quality certifications derived thereof, and the protection of tacit knowledge on the functioning of local ecosystems, flocks and rangeland management. A network of 10 agro-pastoral systems – located the Mediterranean and Atlantic biogeographical regions of Europe and in the arid and semi-arid regions of Northern Africa (Table 1.1), will be subject of investigation for characterisation and diagnostics, design and implementation of tailored strategies, data analysis, and multi-actor knowledge exchange (i.e., agro-pastoralists, decision-makers and researchers). WP2 constitutes the first step of the project in terms of mutual understanding and selection of living labs to support the entire project. According to the systemic approach leveraged on the multifunctionality of resilient agro-pastoralism, common representation of the objects studied at various scales (farm, regional and global) and components (agro-ecosystem, socioeconomic, information) is needed among partners, in order to perform relevant and transversal analysis. Based on the initial characterisation of a diversity of agro-pastoral systems, future directions to improve current situations will be designed to feed the other WPs in a differentiated way. Task 2.1: Conceptual modelling of agro-pastoral systems We propose to perform conceptual modelling of agro-pastoral systems in order to share a common representation, in terms of farming system components and interconnections with their surrounding environment, in their multidimensionality (agroecological, social, economic, territorial). In the present case, the objective of this collaborative work is twofold: (i) to build a common framework to perform analysis (Task 2.2. Data collection of agro-pastoral systems and database creation and 2.4 SWOT analysis of current situations); and (ii) to build mutual understanding between partners of different origins and disciplines. By representing the components of the agro-pastoral production systems and their interactions, this conceptual model will help us understand the distribution of the different types of resources within the system and how this distribution could be modified/altered by the current/or future constraints of the surrounding environment (used in the Task 2.5 Design of tailored strategies for transition to multifunctional agro-pastoral systems). 2.3 Expected Outcomes: Development of a Conceptual Model A comprehensive conceptual model tailored to represent agropastoral systems in the Mediterranean is a first step for common action. This model will serve as a foundational tool to: Capture System Complexity: o Clearly define the key components of agropastoral systems, including livestock, crops, natural resources, and socio-economic dynamics (for ex. Villalba et al. 2023; Vigan et al., 2017). o Represent the interactions and feedback loops between these components, particularly in the context of climate variability, resource management, and market forces. Facilitate Shared Understanding: 5 o Provide a common framework for stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, to analyze and discuss agropastoral systems. o Harmonize terminologies and approaches across disciplines and regions, ensuring consistency in collaborative efforts (for ex. Gouttenoire et al, 2015). Guide Data Collection and Analysis: o Identify priority variables and indicators to monitor the system's performance and resilience (Lieffering et al., 2019; Kalaugher et al. 2017). o Enable standardized methodologies for data collection, allowing for comparability across case studies. Support Decision-Making: (if simulation tool were build derived from conceptual model) o Highlight critical leverage points within the system where interventions could have the greatest impact (for ex. Lurette et al. 2023; Del Prado et al. 2019). o Simulate potential outcomes of policy or management changes to design more effective, context-specific strategies (for ex. Martin et al. 2016). Promote Sustainability and Resilience: o Provide insights into balancing productivity with resource conservation and biodiversity (Tichit et al., 2014). o Address social equity by incorporating the perspectives and needs of diverse stakeholders, including marginalized groups (Thamo et al., 2017). By achieving these outcomes, the conceptual model will not only enhance our understanding of agropastoral systems but also provide a practical tool for driving positive change in the Mediterranean region. 6 Illustrations of existing conceptual model for livestock farming systems (cf. Fig. 1 and 2) Figure 1. Simplified nitrogen (N) flow diagram of the farms showing the percentage contribution of the main outputs over the total N inputs to the farm (N fixation + purchased feed + N atmospheric deposition + N mineral fertiliser). Source : Del Prado et al., 2013 Figure 2. Simplified representation of key stocks, flows and causal linkages in the model. The model portrait includes stocks in which resources accumulate at a particular point in time (boxes) and flows which compute the rate of change into and out of the stock (thick arrows with valves) 7 Source : Godde et al., 2019 (Australia) STOCK-FLOWS model 3 Methodological Framework 3.1 Approach Used: Selmet team expertise and data from partners cases studies Farming systems components from the task 2.2. that focuses on the characterization of agropastoral farming systems: (cf table case studies for each partner and grid of characterization in Appendix 7.1) A grid was elaborated based on the full description of the agropastoral systems. This grid collects charcteristics of both systems and management practices. This grid was shared with all partners. Case studies webinars: aim and scope (cf. the example of webinar presentation of the French cases studied in Appendix 7.2) Several webinars will be organised based on the presentation of the agropastoral systems (1015 min) with description of location, structure of the system, farming practices, types of products, main issues/problems, etc... The presentation has to be focused rather at the scale of the territory (types of agropastoral systems present) rather than the presentation of the more specific case studies selected (will be done at a later stage in the project). This description will be followed by the presentation of case studies selection and living labs (5-10 min) for each partner with an explanation on the choice and the specific features of case studies, selection criteria, organization of living labs. The aim is to explain how choices are made and on what criteria. On December 2024, a webinar based on the French cases studies has been done. A slight description of partners case studies had been done during the annual meeting in May 2024. 3.2 Data Collection: Description of data sources (quantitative and qualitative). The data collection process for the conceptual model was designed to leverage both expert knowledge and practical insights gained from real-world case studies. On the one hand, the Expertise-Based contributions is based from data and insights were gathered from domain experts participating in the project, who possess extensive knowledge of agropastoral systems. These experts provided qualitative and quantitative information based on their professional experience, academic research, and fieldwork observations. This approach ensured that the model reflects a deep understanding of the system's complexity, including management practices, challenges, and opportunities. On the other hand, the information extraction was done from case presentations and during project meetings where partners presented case studies of specific agropastoral systems, showcasing their characteristics, challenges, and management strategies. The integrative approach combines expert contributions with case-based information allowed for a comprehensive representation of the system. This methodology resulted in a common dataset that integrates theoretical expertise with practical, context-specific knowledge. The 8 dual approach of expertise and case-based information extraction ensures the conceptual model is both scientifically rigorous and applicable to real-world scenarios. 4 Description of the Conceptual Model 4.1 Key Definitions and Assumptions: Present the fundamental concepts (livestock, agropastoralism, sustainability, etc.). Object = agropastoral system Problematic = systemic approach and multifonctionality 4.2 Model Structure: Key system components From the conceptual model of livestock systems developed by Landais et al. (1992) the figure 3. represents the framework that describes the various components and interactions within agricultural livestock production systems. This model considers multiple factors such as animal production, environmental conditions, socio-economic elements, and the management practices that influence the overall sustainability and performance of livestock systems. It highlights the importance of understanding the relationships between these factors to optimize resource use, improve productivity, and ensure the long-term viability of livestock farming. This model is often used for research and development purposes to design and assess integrated systems that balance animal welfare, productivity, and environmental impacts. This definition emphasizes the holistic approach, which looks at the livestock farming system as an interconnected whole rather than focusing on individual elements. Figure 3. Illustration of the main components of an agropastoral system. For each component, the description will be done on three main objects: their attributes, their roles and their interactions. All the elements are given as example to illustrate the possible details that a common model could take into account: FARMER: The 'Farmer' in a conceptual model of an agropastoral livestock system is the central defining actor whose decisions and practices have structural, organizational and functional implications for the livestock system: Attributes: 9 Socio-economic profile: Includes age, gender, education level, income, and household size. Resources: Access to land, livestock, water, and other inputs. Traditional and technical knowledge around livestock management, crop cultivation and resource use. Roles: Decision making: Types of livestock, grazing patterns, crops selected for cultivation, uses of input and labour allocation by the farmer Resource management: Responsible for use of land, water and fodder in a sustainable and productive way Economic agent: Participates in markets to sell livestock or produce, buy inputs, and react to price shifts. Attributes: Socio-economic profile: Includes age, gender, education level, income, and household size. Resources: Access to land, livestock, water, and other inputs. Knowledge and skills: Traditional and technical knowledge related to livestock management, crop cultivation, and resource use. Roles: Decision-maker: The farmer decides on livestock types, grazing patterns, crop choices, input use, and labor allocation. Resource manager: Responsible for balancing resource use (land, water, fodder) to ensure sustainability and productivity. Economic agent: Engages with markets to sell livestock or crops, purchase inputs, and respond to price fluctuations. Interactions: Within the system: The farmer comes into contact with herd, crops and the environment, altering and being altered by variables such as soil and grazing pressure and weather status. With external factors: What policies do farmers respond to and what drives market dynamics, in terms of climate variability and supportive institutions such as extension services or cooperatives? With social networks: Exchanges knowledge, labor, and resources within the community or with other stakeholders. In the model, the 'Farmer' is a dynamic element of the model and connects the natural, economic, and social subsystems - driving performance through actions and feedbacks. This component is crucial for promoting understanding of the human dimension around agropastoral systems and implementing successful interventions. 16 • Stakeholder engagement by providing a shared understanding of the system for all actors involved. • Sustainability planning by identifying practices that optimize productivity without degrading resources. Figure 7. Illustration of the agropastoral system embedded in a socio-eco-agrosystem. 4.3 Model Structure: Key management practices The final conceptual model has to taking into account the interconnectivity of components, especially Farmer, Resources and Herd (Figure 8). The decisions or changes in one component cascade and affect others. For instance, poor forage management can cause other resources to degrade and, in return, affect herd productivity and quantity and quality of animal products produced. This requires a conceptual model that describes the interdependencies so that the dynamics of the system can be understood properly. Management of feeding or herd composition components is further complicated through external factors-ranging from climate variation to resource availability to policy constraints in terms of the choices expressed in the model that enhance the understanding of trade-offs and unveil possible strategies for optimization. 17 Figure 8. Illustration of the agropastoral system and the management of these components. FORAGE MANAGEMENT : The 'Forage Management' component represents the strategies and practices used to ensure the availability and quality of feed for livestock. This component is central to maintaining herd health and productivity while balancing environmental sustainability. It can be defined in terms of its elements, objectives, and interactions: Elements of Forage Management: • Natural forage: Management of grazing lands, rangelands, and pastures, including rotational grazing and fallowing. • Cultivated forage: Production of fodder crops (e.g., alfalfa, maize, millet) grown specifically for livestock feeding. • Fertilization : • Irrigation : • Supplementary feed: Use of purchased feed, crop residues, or conserved fodder like silage and hay. Objectives of Forage Management: • Maximizing availability: Ensuring a consistent and sufficient supply of feed throughout the year, especially during critical periods like dry seasons. • Improving quality: Enhancing the nutritional value of forage to support animal health, growth, and productivity. • Sustainable use: Preventing overgrazing and land degradation by managing stocking rates and grazing intensity. • Resilience: Adapting forage practices to cope with climatic variability, such as droughts or changing rainfall patterns. Interactions: • With the herd: Forage availability and quality directly impact livestock performance, influencing milk production, growth rates, and reproductive success. 18 • With resources: Grazing management affects soil health, vegetation cover, and biodiversity, while water availability influences forage crop yields. • With the socioeconomic environment: Access to land, markets for supplementary feed, and policy frameworks for grazing rights or subsidies affect forage management decisions. • With farmers: Farmers implement forage strategies based on their knowledge, labor availability, economic capacity, and local ecological conditions. Within the model, the ‘Forage Management’ component is pivotal for linking resource use, herd productivity, and environmental sustainability. Developing a good understanding of this component will help identify ways to optimize feed availability and minimize environmental impacts, hence ensuring the agropastoral system remains viable in the long term. FEEDING MANAGEMENT : the 'Feeding Management' component focuses on the practices and strategies used to provide adequate nutrition to livestock. This component is critical for optimizing animal health, productivity, and system efficiency while adapting to resource availability and economic constraints: Elements of Feeding Management: • Feed sources: Natural grazing on rangelands or pastures, cultivated fodder crops (e.g., alfalfa, maize), supplemental feeds, including purchased feed concentrates, crop residues, and industrial by-products. • Feed storage and preservation: methods for storing hay, silage, or other conserved fodder to ensure feed availability during scarcity. • Ration formulation: balancing feed types and quantities to meet the nutritional needs of animals based on age, species, physiological status (e.g., lactation, growth), and production goals. Goals of Feeding Management: • Meeting nutritional requirements: Providing balanced diets to maximize animal health, growth, reproduction, and milk or meat production. • Efficient resource use: Minimizing feed waste and optimizing the use of available resources, including crop residues or grazing. • Cost-effectiveness: Reducing feeding costs while maintaining productivity, often by integrating locally available or alternative feed resources. • Sustainability: Avoiding over-reliance on external inputs and minimizing environmental impacts, such as nutrient runoff or overgrazing. Interactions: • With the herd: Feeding directly impacts animal health, productivity, and welfare. Malnutrition or imbalanced diets can lead to reduced yields and increased susceptibility to disease. • With forage management: Feeding practices depend on the quality and quantity of forage produced or harvested, as well as grazing management strategies. • With farmers: Decisions on feeding management are influenced by farmers’ knowledge, economic resources, and labor availability. 19 • With the socioeconomic environment: Access to markets for feed, input costs, and policy incentives for feed production or subsidies affect feeding practices. • With environmental factors: Climate variability influences feed availability and the need for supplementary feeding during droughts or extreme conditions. From all these elements, we can define the key Practices of the feeding management: 1. Planning and adjusting feeding schedules and rations based on seasonal variations in forage availability. 1 Incorporating locally available or alternative feeds to reduce costs and dependence on external inputs. 2 Monitoring and adjusting diets to align with herd productivity targets and health requirements. In the model, the Feeding Management component thus becomes a link between resources, herd dynamics, and productivity in the model. Knowledge and adaptation of feeding practices increase agropastoral systems' efficiency, sustainability, and resilience. HERD MANAGEMENT : the 'Herd Management' component represents the strategies and practices used to maintain and enhance the productivity, health, and well-being of livestock. This component is fundamental to achieving the system’s economic, social, and environmental goals: Elements of Herd Management: • Animal health management: Vaccination, parasite control, disease monitoring, and treatment of sick animals. • Reproductive management: Breeding programs, selection of superior genetics, and managing mating or artificial insemination. • Herd composition and size: Decisions on stocking density, culling, and replacement rates to balance herd productivity with available resources. • Mobility and grazing: Practices such as transhumance or rotational grazing to optimize forage use and reduce environmental impact. • Animal welfare: Ensuring proper housing, nutrition, and handling to minimize stress and injuries. Objectives of Herd Management: • Maximizing productivity: Achieving high yields of milk, meat, wool, or other animal products. • Enhancing resilience: Building the herd’s capacity to withstand environmental, economic, or health shocks. • Sustainability: Aligning herd size and management practices with the carrying capacity of the environment. • Economic efficiency: Balancing input costs (e.g., feed, veterinary care) with returns from livestock production. Interactions: 20 • With the herd: Herd management practices influence livestock health, reproductive performance, and productivity. • With resources: Decisions on herd size and mobility depend on forage availability, water resources, and land conditions. • With feeding management: Herd nutritional needs drive feed type, quantity, and scheduling decisions. • With farmers: Herd management reflects farmers’ knowledge, labor availability, and economic goals, as well as their ability to adapt to changes in conditions. • With the socioeconomic environment: Markets, policies, and infrastructure impact herd management strategies, such as access to veterinary services or breeding programs. Key Practices: • Monitoring herd health and performance to make informed decisions about culling, reproduction, and resource allocation. • Managing herd mobility to optimize grazing while minimizing environmental degradation. • Implementing disease prevention and treatment protocols to ensure herd vitality. • Adapting herd size and composition to match resource availability and market demands. In the model, the Herd Management component aims to pair productivity with environmental sustainability and economic viability. The Herd Management component provides insight into the manner in which management practices would affect the system outcome, thereby discerning where intervention can drive efficiency and enhance resilience. MARKETING STRATEGY: the component of Marketing Strategy involves processes and decisions relating to the transfer of animal products and possibly other by-products from producer to consumer. This is a very critical component ensuring economic sustainability while optimizing producer's revenue and linking agropastoral system to wider economic systems: Key Elements for Marketing Strategy: • Investigating and analyzing markets: researching customers' preferences, patterns of demand, and pricing trends, understanding market segmentation at local, regional, and world markets. • Product development and distinctiveness: enhancing product value through assurance of quality, standardization, certification (for example: organic, geographical indications), product presentation, and packaging, pointing to unique selling propositions (for example: traditional methods, environment consciousness). • Distribution channels: direct selling to consumers (for example: farmers markets, online platforms), partnership with intermediaries such as wholesalers, cooperatives, or retailers. • Pricing strategy: determining price on the basis of production cost, demand, and strategic competition in order to gain assured market presence, additional premium 21 pricing strategies would ensure that niche or value-added product lines generate a higher return in line with set pricing equity. • Promotion and branding: raising consumer awareness using marketing advertisements, social media, and participation in trade fairs, creation and establishment of a strong brand identity in a way to gain consumer trust and recall. Interactions within the Model: • With producers (Farmers): marketing strategy hinges on the farmers' knowledge and infrastructure and the preparedness of the farmers to innovate. Strong marketing strategies enhance farmers' incomes and give stability to the market. • With animal products: marketing strategies mostly influence how products are prepared, packaged, and offered so that they can meet consumers' expectations. • With the socioeconomic environment: infrastructure, market access, policies, and consumer-targeting trends determine whether the strategy could be feasible or successful. • Feeding and herd management: well-thought marketing strategies can fasten farmers' willingness to change either feeding or herd management for better product quality and/or proper production that fits optimal market demand. The integration of the ‘Marketing strategy’ component within the conceptual model puts an emphasis on economic drivers that shape the agropastoral system. It illustrates how value flows from production to consumption and spells out the mechanisms for improving the profitability and resilience of the system. By openly modeling this component, stakeholders can define targeted interventions to enhance market integration, product value, and farmer livelihoods. 22 Figure 9. Illustration of the whole common agropastoral system, including all its components, interactions and environment. 23 5 Conclusion In conclusion, this report has presented the development of a conceptual model to represent the complexity and dynamics of agropastoral systems. By integrating expertise with casebased information, the model offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the interactions between key components such as farmers, herds, resources, forage and feeding management, and socio-economic environments. The study underscores the following key takeaways: 1. Interconnectedness and Complexity: Agropastoral systems are deeply embedded in broader socio-ecological contexts. Effective management requires acknowledging the interdependencies among components and external drivers such as markets, policies, and climate change. 2. Importance of Holistic Representation: A conceptual model that incorporates management practices, resource flows, and socio-economic factors is essential for capturing the full scope of these systems. Such a model can serve as a valuable tool for stakeholders to identify sustainable strategies and optimize resource use. 3. Practical Applications: The developed model is not only a theoretical construct but could be also a further framework for analyzing scenarios, supporting decision-making, and designing policies that enhance the resilience and sustainability of agropastoral systems. The dynamic nature of agropastoral systems calls for continuous refinement of the model to account for emerging challenges such as climate change and evolving market demands. By providing a structured approach to understanding and managing agropastoral systems, this report contributes to advancing sustainable practices that balance productivity, environmental management, and socio-economic equity, and will feed the reflection on multifunctionality of a diversity agropastoral systems within all the case studies of the PASAGRO-PAS project. 6 Bibliography Dedieu, B., P. Faverdin, J. Dourmad et A. Gibon (mars 2008). « Système d’élevage, un concept pour raisonner les transformations de l’élevage ». INRAE Productions Animales 21.1, p. 45-58. doi : 10.20870/productions-animales.2008.21.1.3374. url : https://productionsanimales.org/article/view/3374. Del Prado, A., P. Crosson, J. Olesen et C. Rotz (2013). « Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems ». Animal 7s2, p. 373-385. Godde, C., Dizyee, K., Ash, A., Thornton, P., Sloat, L., Roura, E., ... & Herrero, M. (2019). Climate change and variability impacts on grazing herds: Insights from a system dynamics approach for semi‐ arid Australian rangelands. Global change biology, 25(9), 3091-3109. 24 Gouttenoire, L., S. Cournut et S. Ingrand (juill. 2013). « Farm-scale models built with farmers converting and converted to organic farming ». Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33.3, p. 609619. doi : 10.1007/s13593-012-0125-6. Kalaugher, E. and Beukes, P. and Bornman, J. and Clark, A. and Campbell, D. (2017). Modelling farm-level adaptation of temperate, pasture-based dairy farms to climate change. Agricultural Systems. 153: pp. 53-68. Landais, E. (1992). Principes de modélisation des systèmes d'élevage. Approches graphiques. Les cahiers de la recherche développement, (32), 82-95. Lieffering, M; Newton, PCD; (...); Li, FY, (2016). Exploring climate change impacts and adaptations of extensive pastoral agriculture systems by combining biophysical simulation and farm system models. May 2016 | AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS 144, pp.77-86 – modèle APSIM Lurette, A., F. Douhard, L. Puillet, A. Madrid, M. Curtil et F. Stark (sept. 2022a). « Modelling as a tool to explore adaptation of Mediterranean sheep farming systems to climate change ». EAAP. Porto, Portugal. url : https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03788187. Martin, G; Felten, B and Duru, M. (2016) Forage rummy: A game to support the participatory design of adapted livestock systems Dec 2011, ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE 26 (12), pp.1442-1453 Thamo, T; Addai, D; (...); Young, JM. (2017) Climate change impacts and farm-level adaptation: Economic analysis of a mixed cropping-livestock system. Jan 2017, AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS 150, pp.99-108 Tichit, M., L. Puillet, D. Sauvant et al. (2009). « How models contribute to livestock farming system research : overview of recent advances ». Options Méd, p. 293-306. Vigan, A., J. Lasseur, M. Benoit, F. Mouillot, M. Eugène, L. Mansard, M. Vigne, P. Lecomte et C. Dutilly (2017). Evaluating livestock mobility as a strategy for climate change mitigation : Combining models to address the specificities of pastoral systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 242, p. 89-101. Villalba, D., B. Diez-Unqera, A. Carrascal, A. Bernués et R. Ruiz (2019). « Multi-objective simulation and optimisation of dairy sheep farms : Exploring trade-offs between economic and environmental outcomes ». Agricultural Systems 173, p. 107-118. Voinov, A., N. Kolagani, M. K. McCall, P. D. Glynn, M. E. Kragt, F. O. Ostermann, S. A. Pierce et P. Ramu (2016). Modelling with stakeholders–next generation ». Environmental Modelling & Software 77, p. 196-220. 25 7 Appendices 7.1. Appendix: Table describing the main characteristics for the agropastoral systems in PAS AGRO PAS project Country (#)Region/Ecological zone/Rainfall Livestock/Breed Flock size Population /Endangered breed? Crop system Crop residues / Supplement Access to markets/ Goods/PDO? Portugal (1)Region: Tras-OsMontes Zone: Mediterranean 508 mm/yr Sheep: Churra Badana 80-100 heads/flock ~2700 heads, endangered breed Olive grove with cover crops, subterranean clovers, annual clovers, serradela Olive cake and olive trees by-products Markets: good access Goods: lamb meat, milk, cheese; none with PDO Cyprus (2)Island of Cyprus Zone: Mediterranean 370 mm/yr Sheep and goats 100 – 500 sheep or goats per flock ~ 5000 adults endangered breed Olive grove with cover crops, subterranean clovers, annual clovers Olive cake and olive trees by-products Markets: good access Goods: lamb and kid meat, milk, Halloumi cheese (with PDO) Egypt (3)Coastal Zone of Western Desert, with irrigated reclaimed areas; <140 mm/yr Sheep: Barky Goat: Barky Sheep: 100-200 heads/flock Goats: 3060 heads/ flock Half million each; not endangered breed Ranges, figs and olives with barley/forges and cash crops in the reclaimed areas Barley stubbles and fruit trees residues Markets: reasonable access Goods: kids, wool, hides, milk, mutton, goat meat France (4) PACA and Occitanie / Mediterranean 4501 000 mm/yr Sheep and goat Sheep: 350 heads/flock Goat: 100 heads/ flock Not endangered breed Rangeland, forage crop Vineyard, orchard Markets: reasonable access Products: meat, cheese without PDO Italy (5) Mountain and hills of Sardinia Zone: Mediterranean 550-700 mm/yr Dairy sheep of the Sarda breed >100 sheep/flock ~2.6 million heads; not endangered breed Meriagos (grasslands rich of oak trees or bushy vegetation) with grasses and legumes Cereals, grassland stubbles, cereal stubbles Markets: good access Goods: milking lambs (IGP Lamb of Sardinia), cheese with 3 PDO: Fiore, Pecorino Romano, Pecorino Sardo Morocco (6)IAV: RehamnaElkalaa; Semi-arid zone 200-300 mm/yr Sheep: Sardi 40-100 heads/flock At least one million, not endangered breed Cereals, olive grove Cereal grains, industrial by-products Markets: fair access Goods: meat; no quality labels