advancing agroforestry on the policy agenda, a guide for decision-makers (fao – 2013)

7/27/2019 Advancing Agroforestry on the Policy Agenda, A guide for decision-makers (FAO 2013)

1/50

Agro for estr y Wor king Paper no.1

Advancing Agroforestry

on the Policy AgendaA guide for decision-makers


2/50

Photograph credit

FAO/Walter Astrada, Haiti


3/50

Advancing Agroforestryon the Policy Agenda

A guide or decision-makers

WRITTEN BY

Grard Buttoud

EDITED BY

Frank Place and Michelle Gauthier

DESIGNED BY

Kristel Gallopin

SUPERVISED AND COORDINATED BY

Michelle Gauthier

DEVELOPED IN COLLABORATION WITH

CATIE (Guillermo Detlefsen)

CIRAD (Emmanuel Torquebiau)ICRAF (Frank Place and Oluyede Ajayi)

Agroforestr y Working Paper no.1

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, 2013


4/50

Te purpose o the Agroorestry Working Paper series is to provide early inormation on ongoingactivities and programmes, to acilitate dialogue and to stimulate discussion. Te working papers do notreect any ocial position o FAO. Please reer to the FAO Forestry Web site (www.ao.org/orestry)or urther inormation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

Eduardo MansurDirectorForest Assessment, Management and Conservation DivisionFAO Forestry Department

Viale delle erme di Caracalla00153 Rome, ItalyE-mail : [email protected] site: www.ao.org/orestry

Comments and eedbacks are welcome

PLEASE CITE AS

FAO. 2013. Advancing Agroorestry on the Policy Agenda: A guide or decision-makers, by G.Buttoud, in collaboration with O. Ajayi, G. Detlesen, F. Place & E. orquebiau. Agroorestry WorkingPaper no. 1. Food and Agriculture Organization o the United Nations. FAO, Rome. 37 pp.

Te designations employed and the presentation o material in this inormation product do not implythe expression o any opinion whatsoever on the part o the Food and Agriculture Organization o theUnited Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status o any country, territory, city or areaor o its authorities, or concerning the delimitation o its rontiers or boundaries. Te mention o speciccompanies or products o manuacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply thatthese have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preerence to others o a similar nature that arenot mentioned.

Te views expressed in this inormation product are those o the author(s) and do not necessarily reectthe views or policies o FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-107470-1

FAO 2013

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination o material in this inormation product.Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed or private study,research and teaching purposes, or or use in non-commercial products or services, provided thatappropriate acknowledgement o FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAOsendorsement o users views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests or translation and adaptation rights, and or resale and other commercial use rights shouldbe made via www.ao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].

FAO inormation products are available on the FAO website (www.ao.org/publications) and can bepurchased through [email protected].


5/50

Dedication

Tis book is dedicated to Michelle Gauthier, a orestry ocer at the FAO Forestry Department, who

passed away suddenly in February 2013. Michelle championed urban orestry and agroorestry as

important means or improving the livelihoods o millions o peoples, and she was the driving orce in

the publication o this book.

She will be sorely missed.


6/50


7/50v

CONTENTS

Acronyms and abbreviations vi

List o boxes vi

Foreword vii

Acknowledgements viii

Executive Summary ix

INTRODUCTION THE GUIDELINES: WHAT, WHO AND WHY? 1

PART I AGROFORESTRY: STRATEGY AND POLICY 2

Why develop agroorestry? 2

Conditions or agroorestry development 5

Barriers to agroorestry development 7

Why promote and regulate agroorestry through policies? 11

Drivers o agroorestry development 14

PART II AGROFORESTRY: WHICH POLICIES? 16

Lessons rom success stories 16

So what? en tracks or policy action 20

1. Spread the word 21

2. Revise the context 22

3. Secure the land 23

4. Create a new approach 24

5. Organize and synergize 25

6. Provide incentives 26

7. Develop markets 28

8. Communicate the know-how 29

9. Include the stakeholder 31

10. Govern wisely 32

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND CASE STUDIES 33

GLOSSARY 35


8/50vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAFAF French Agroorestry Association [Association Franaise dAgrooresterie]

CAIE ropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Centre [Centro Agronmicoropical de Investigacin y Enseanza]

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CIRAD Agricultural Research Centre or International Development [Centre de CooprationInternationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Dveloppement]

COP Conerence o the Parties

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization o the United Nations

GFG Policy Grain or Green Policy (China)

FONAFIFO National Forestry Financing Fund [Fondo Nacionale de Financiamiento Forestale]

(Costa Rica)ICRAF World Agroorestry Centre

IFES integrated ood-energy system

iLUC indirect land-use change

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action

NAPA National Adaptation Plan o Action

NGO non-governmental organization

NOEL Program Nurseries o Excellence Program

NSCA National Steering Committee on Agroorestry (Malawi)

PINPEP Programme o Forestry Incentives or Owners o Small Plots o Land used or

Forestry and Agroorestry [Programa de Incentivos para Pequeos Poseedores(as) de ierras de Vocacin Forestal o Agroorestal] (Guatemala)

PES payment or environmental services

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertication

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USDA United States Department o Agriculture

LIST OF BOXES1 Cameroon: mixing ruit trees and cocoa the benets 3

2 Agroorestry in IFES development 5

3 Limits on timber harvesting in Central America 64 Inadequate research and extension services 8

5 Te Grain or Green (GFG) policy in China: compensating planting armers 12

6 Improved allow in Zambia: the limitation o by-laws 13

7 Te promotion o arabic gum in Niger 17

8 National Steering Committee on Agroorestry (NSCA) in Malawi 18

9 Agroorestry policy in Kenya 20

10 France: a new agricultural policy recognizing the role o trees in arm systems 24

11 A PES experience: Costa Rica 27

12 Public planning as a promotion tool? Te USDA Agroorestry Strategic Framework 20112016 30

13 An agroorestry programme: PINPEP in Guatemala 30

14 Area-based projects can enhance agroorestry systems: rural pacts in Quebec, Canada 3115 Agroorestry: you are the key 32


9/50

FOREWORDAgroorestry systems include both traditional and modern land-usesystems in which trees are managed together with crops and/or animalproduction systems in agricultural settings. Agroorestry is practisedin both tropical and temperate regions, where it produces ood andbre, contributes to ood and nutritional security, sustains livelihoods,alleviates poverty, and promotes productive and resilient croppingand grassland environments. Agroorestry systems may also enhanceecosystems by storing carbon, preventing deorestation, increasingbiodiversity, protecting water resources and reducing erosion. In

addition, when applied strategically on a large scale, agroorestryenables agricultural lands to withstand weather events, such asoods and drought, and climate change.

Even though these benets justiy increased investment inthe development o agroorestry systems, the sector isdisadvantaged by adverse policies, legal constraints and a lacko coordination between the governmental sectors to which itcontributes namely, agriculture, orestry, rural development,environment and trade. It has not been addressed sucientlyin policy ormulation, and nor has it been integrated into

land-use planning or rural development programmes.Tus, the potential o agroorestry to enrich armers,communities and, by extension, national economies has notbeen ully exploited.

o promote agroorestry in national policy rameworksand boost its impact, the Forestry Department o theFood and Agriculture Organization o the UnitedNations (FAO) in cooperation with the WorldAgroorestry Centre (ICRAF), the ropicalAgricultural Research and Higher EducationCentre (CAIE) and the Agricultural ResearchCentre or International Development (CIRAD) has prepared this guide, designed to assistcountries to support conditions that willoptimize agroorestrys contribution tonational development.

Eduardo MansurDirectorForest Assessment, Managementand Conservation Division, FAO Forestry Department

FAO/WalterA

strada

vii


10/50viii

his document is the result o a mult i- inst itut ional coll aborat ion involving specia li sts romvarious disc iplines worldwide. It was in it iated by the FAO-Finland Sustainable ForestManagement in a Changing Climate Programme (GCP/GLO/194/MUL) and also receivedinancial support rom the Government o Belgium. Michelle Gauthier rom FAO ForestAssessment, Management and Conser vation Division, was responsible or coordination andsupervision o the document, which beneited rom close col laboration with CAIE, CIRADand ICRAF.

An open incept ion workshop with more than 30 expert s, held in Rome on 7-8 June 2010,beneited rom the advice o two senior consultants: Jean-Marc Boa and Grard Buttoud.

A part ic ipator y process was put in place, w ith a task orce coordinated by Grard Buttoud(University o uscia, Italy) and composed o Frank Place and Oluyede Cliord Ajayi(ICRAF), Emmanuel orquebiau (CIRAD), Guillermo Detlesen (CAIE) and MichelleGauthier (FAO). A questionnaire was sent to specialists in several target countri es and66 experts responded, both rom government administrations and non-governmentalorganizations.

At a taskorce workshop held in Rome on 1517 March 2011, pre liminary resu lts o thequestionnaires were presented and participants agreed on a process or developing the policyguidelines and choosing countr y case studies. he guidelines would not have been as richwithout the case studies that were prepared, and specia l thanks are due to the case-study

authors: Andr Luiz Rodrigues Gonalves, Martin Meier, Andrew Miccolis, Roberto Porroand Jorge Luiz V ivan (Brazil), Divine Foundjem ita (Cameroon), Francisco CasasolaCoto, Guillermo Detlesen and Muhammad Akbar Ibrahim (Costa Rica and Guatemala),Carla Cardenas Monroy (Ecuador), Kiros Meles Hadgu (Ethiopia), Emmanuel orquebiau(France), J. Christine Wulandari (Indonesia), Peter Gachie, Simon K. Kage, Frank Placeand Philip W. Wamahiu (Kenya), Phiri Innocent Pangapanga and Oluyede Ajayi (Malawi),Ju lio Ugar te (Peru) , Roberto Visco (Phi lippines), Luther Lulandala (anzania) and Gill ianKabwe (Zambia). he unedited inal reports o these case studies, which are listed in thebibliography, are available on demand by contacting FAO. hey will be published in 2013 aspart o the FAO Agroorestry Working Paper series.

Grard Buttoud synthesized the various c ase-study contributions. he peer review process

beneited rom substantial contributions by external experts and institutions, including FrankBoteler, Jennier Conje, Hubert de Foresta, Elise Golan, Michael Idowu, Gillian Kabwe,Luther Lulandala, Andy Mason, Andrew Miccolis, Georges Mountrakis, Constance Neely,Linda Parker, Roberto Porro, Sara Scherr, Michael Schoeneberger, Rita Sharma, RichardStraight, Bruce Wight, Christine Wulandari and Jianchu Xu. From FAO, the ollowingoicers contributed to the peer review process: Carolin Anthes, Anne Bogdanski, JulienCustot, heodor Friedrich, Jean Gault, Henri George, Paolo Groppo, Fred Kaeero, IrinaKouplevatskaya-Buttoud, Lars Gunnar Marklund, Ewald Rametsteiner, Cesar Sabogal andMarja Lii sa apio Bistrom.

hanks are also owed to Andranne Lavoie , I laria Doimo and Laurence Houssou (junior

proessionals), who eiciently dedicated their short-term internships to this project.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


11/50ix

Agroorestry systems include both traditional and modern land-use systems where trees are managedtogether with crops and/or animal production systems in agricultural settings. When designed andimplemented correctly, agroorestry combines the best practices o tree growing and agricultural systemsresulting in more sustainable use o land. Agroorestry takes place in both tropical and temperate regions,producing ood and bre or better ood and nutritional security. It also sustains livelihoods, alleviatespoverty and promotes productive, resilient agricultural environments. In addition, when practised at scale,it can enhance ecosystems through carbon storage, prevention o deorestation, biodiversity conservation,cleaner water and erosion control, while enabling agricultural lands to withstand events such as oods,drought and climate change.

Te potential o agroorestry to contribute to sustainable development has been recognized ininternational policy meetings, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), justiying increased investment in itsdevelopment.

Yet agroorestry continues to ace challenges such as unavourable policy incentives, inadequateknowledge dissemination, legal constraints and poor coordination among the multiple sectors towhich it contributes. Nor is it suciently addressed in national policy-making, land-use planning andrural development programmes. As a result, its potential contribution to the economy and sustainabledevelopment goals has not been ully recognized or exploited. One o the policy challenges acingagroorestry in many countries is the emphasis on monoculture ood, industrial agricultural crops and

mechanized arming (oten subsidized) discouraging the integration o trees into armland. Moreover,in some countries, the bureaucracy involved or accessing both land and tree-based products, combinedwith land ownership problems, creates long-term uncertainty that urther restricts agroorestry initiatives.Farmers may also perceive trees as incompatible with their arm operations and may not benet romprogrammes which ofer training or access to tree related inputs (e.g. germplasm) to the extent that theydo or other agricultural enterprises. A lack o knowledge o the advantages o agroorestry inadvertentlyleads to the perception that it is peripheral to agriculture and is a low output subsistence system.

Te development o agroorestry is oten impeded by legal, policy and institutional arrangements, itsenvironmental benets are mostly unrewarded, and investment is discouraged by the long time betweenadoption and returns. Policies are needed, thereore, to promote the benets o agroorestry. Te generalobjective o this guide is to assist countries to develop policy, legal and institutional conditions that

acilitate the adoption o agroorestry and recognize its contribution to national development. Tisincludes better communication between sectors and the mainstreaming o agroorestry in nationalpolicies.

Tese guidelines were developed rom a mix o workshops, structured interviews with experts, anddetailed national case studies rom both the developed and developing world.

According to the lessons learned, there are our critical conditions that encourage agroorestry:

itshouldbebenecialtofarmersandotherlandusers;

theremustbesecurityoflandtenure;

intersectoralcoordinationisessential;

goodgovernanceofnaturalresourcesiscrucial.

EXECUIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


12/50x

In conclusion, the guidelines provide ten tracks or policy action:

1. Spread the word. Raise awareness o the benets o agroorestry systems to both individualarmers and global society.

2. Revise the context.Appraise and reorm unavourable regulations and legal restrictions.

3. Secure the land.Clariy land-use policy goals and regulations.

4. Create a new approach.Elaborate new agricultural policies that take into account the roleo trees in rural development.

5. Organize and synergize.Organize intersectoral coordination or better policy coherence

and synergies.

6. Provide incentives. Create a clear context or payments or environmental services.

7. Develop markets.Strengthen armers access to markets or tree products.

8. Communicate the know-how. Enhance stakeholder inormation.

9. Include the stakeholder. Formulate or strengthen policy based on local peoples needs andrights.

10. Govern wisely. Engage in good governance o rural activities.

It is expected that the actions outlined above will contribute to the ormulation o coherent,interactive and proactive public policies that support the development o agroorestry systems.

Haiti, Fort-Libert The manager o a local nurserywatering seedlings provided by FAO along with toolsand equipment to better manage the nursery.The aim o the project is to contribute to the growth anddiversication o agriculture, livestock and agroorestry

and improve natural resources management or themunicipalities o Fort Libert, Capotille, Ouanaminte,Ferrier, Mont-Organis.

EXECUIVE SUMMARY

FAO/G

iuseppeBizzarri


13/501

PART I - AGROFORESTRY: STRATEGY AND POLICY

hese guidelines are aimed primarily at all those involved in making policies at national andregional levels, such as decision-makers, civil servants and key policy advisors. Teir unction isto support increased recognition o agroorestry benets, acilitate the development o policiespromoting agroorestry systems, and educate those that constrain agroorestry at the nationallevel.

Te guidelines present a set o principles rather than prescribed methods. Tey advise how tointegrate agroorestry into policies, particularly helping countries to ormulate policies or theirspecic conditions. Tey provide examples o good practices and success stories, as well as lessonslearned rom challenges and ailures.

Tey are designed as an entry point or policy creation or change. In cases where agroorestry

policy is completely absent, they can assist in creating awareness o agroorestry systems andshow how policy issues can be addressed, through innovative policy design taking trees, cropsand animal production into account. In other cases, where agroorestry is recognized in policyrameworks, the guidelines can assist in improving the economic, social and policy context, so thatincentives or practising agroorestry are strengthened.

INRODUCION - HE GUIDELINES: WHA, WHO AND WHY?

FAO/JimHolmes

Indonesia, Banada Aceh Awoman buying ruits rom avendor at an open air market.

Tree crops play an importantrole in the household economieso rural Aceh. As a result o thetsunami and civil confict many treegardens were damaged resultingin insucient supply o ruits andvegetables. ICRAF and WINROCKsNurseries o Excellence (NOEL)Program aims to support post-tsunami Aceh rehabilitation andreconstruction eorts by improvingtree gardens with productive treecrops produced in community-based nurseries o excellence.

Te guidelines:

what, who and why?


14/502

Why develop agroforestry?

Almost hal the worlds agricultural lands has at least a 10 percent tree cover, suggesting thatagroorestry, an integrated system o trees, crops and/or livestock within a managed arm oragricultural landscape, is widespread and critical to the livelihoods o millions o people.

In act agroorestry is signicant in the production o both local commodities (such as uelwood,timber, ruit and odder) and global ones (such as coconut, cofee, tea, cocoa, rubber and gum). Itcan also play a strategic role in helping many countries meet key national development objectives,especially those related to poverty eradication, ood security and environmental sustainability.

In towns and villages, its positive outcomes can be seen in ood, uelwood and watershedmanagement, contributing to a more resilient ood system.

Agroorestry is present throughout tropical regions o the world and to a signicant extent intemperate areas. Within broad agroorestry systems, such as the parklands o West Arica, thereare a diversity o species and practices, such as intercropping o ruits with cereal crops.

Optimizing agricultural production and environmental benets through

agroorestry

When designed and implemented correctly, agroorestry combines the best practices o treegrowing and agricultural systems, resulting in more sustainable use o land.

For example, agroorestry:

helpsprotectandsustainagriculturalproductivecapacity; ensuresfooddiversityandseasonalnutritionalsecurity; diversiesruralincomes; strengthensresiliencetoclimaticuctuations; helpsperpetuatelocalknowledgeandsocialandculturalvalues.

Te combination o trees, crops and livestock mitigates environmental risk, helps create apermanent soil cover against erosion, minimizes damage rom ooding and enhances water

storage, benetting crops and pastures. In addition, trees bring nutrients rom deeper soil layers,

Agroforestry:strategy and policy


15/503


or in the case o leguminous trees, through nitrogen xation, which can convert lea litter intoertilizer or crops.

Agroorestry serves to improve the resilience o armers and increase their household incomethrough the harvesting o diverse products at diferent times o the year. It also brings jobopportunities rom the processing o tree products, expanding the economic benets to ruralcommunities and national economies.

Agroorestry systems can be conceived or spaces varying rom plots to arms to landscapes. Atplot level, armers may combine nitrogen-xing trees with cereal crops. At arm level, they mayplant trees in woodlots or along boundaries, and at landscape scale communities may rehabilitatedegraded areas through trees and other vegetation. Efective agroorestry systems make the

most o positive interactions between their various components, so that the nal product ismore valuable than in the absence o trees, while the risks o ailed harvests and dependence onchemical inputs are reduced. Even at plot level, where trees may compete directly with crops,experiments demonstrate that in well-managed agroorestry plots, trees have added value thatexceed any loss in crop production value. However, these outcomes are not guaranteed, soattention must be paid to the type o agroorestry system used and species selected.

Box 1 Cameroon: mixing fruit trees and cocoa the benets

The associaon of fruit trees with cocoa or coee

plantaons in Central and South Cameroon is a

tradional way to enhance land and resource use.

This system was developed during the mid-1980s

and 1990s, when the price of major export crops,

including coee and cocoa, dropped.

This agroforestry system:

reduces land degradaon and provides

benecial shade cover to cocoa plants, while

playing an important role in stocking carbon and

thus migang climate change;

provides an important alternave source of

income when other main cash crops are not in

producon, thereby contribung to regular and

stable rural incomes.

Cocoa agroforestry systems, enriched with fruit

trees, both indigenous and exoc, may increase

annual household income substanally. This system

is very helpful to small-scale farmers with limited

land.

Today, some of these fruit tree-based agroforestry

systems are ageing and need to be renewed to

maintain the opmum benets.

ICRAF/CharliePye-Smith

Cte dIvoire - ICRAFs

new Vision of Change

project aims to increase

cocoa yields through

rehabilitating old cocoa

gardens using high-

yielding varieties of cocoa

and good agricultural

practices.


16/504

Opportunities or agroorestry developmentTe potential o agroorestry to contribute to sustainable development has been recognized ininternational policy meetings. Te UNFCCC and the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) increasingly acknowledge it as a component o climate-smart agriculture.During the 2011 Conerence o the Parties (COP)17 meeting in Durban, agroorestry wasrequently mentioned as having a strong potential or climate change adaptation and mitigation.Furthermore, National Adaptation Plans o Action (NAPAs) and Nationally AppropriateMitigation Actions (NAMAs) talk o agroorestry as an important component in agriculturalsector actions.

In addition, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertication (UNCCD) acknowledgesagroorestrys potential to control desertication and rehabilitation. It is also seen as an important

practice in the ecosystem approach promoted by the CBD and contributes to its Global Strategyor Plant Conservation.

In a number o countries there have been attempts to harness agroorestry potential by improvingthe coordination o national activities, through the development o national inormationnetworks. New opportunities or agroorestry are also emerging, such as within the miombowoodlands (savannah) o central, eastern and southern Arica. Tis area covers 3 million km2 over11 countries and contributes to the livelihoods o some 100 million low-income persons. Similaris the expansion o natural regeneration o dry degraded land in the Sahelian area o Arica withthepotentialtomitigateclimatechangeandincreaseruralincome;inNiger,newlegalconditionsencouraged armers to manage natural tree regeneration, leading to over 5 million hectares o

newly generated parkland systems. In the United States, where agroorestry is not universallyadopted, there is growing recognition o its ability to help armers, ranchers, woodland ownersand indigenous people to integrate productivity and protability with environmental stewardship,culture and traditions.

Haiti, Fort-Libert The manager

o a local nursery watering

seedlings provided by FAO along

with tools and equipment to

better manage the nursery. The

aim o the project is to contribute

to the growth and diversication

o agriculture, livestock and

agroorestry and improve natural

resources management or the

municipalities o Fort Libert,

Capotille, Ouanaminte, Ferrier,Mont-Organis.

FAO/IvoBalderi

FAO/LucaTommasini


17/505


Box 2 Agroforestry in IFES development

Integrated food-energy systems (IFES) present

numerous benets, especially for poor rural

communies. By maximizing the synergies

between wood and crop producon, agroforestry

may strongly contribute to the success of both.

In these systems, the management of agroforestry

plots involves regular pruning. The pruned

branches are used as ground cover (mulch) andserve in tradional kitchens for cooking, as well as

a resource for pyrolysis. In the laer process, the

branches are converted into biochar, which, when

mixed with the soil, improves its structure, ferlity

and ability to store moisture. Using the lierfall

of trees to grow crops, farmers save money that

is not invested in fossil energy and may use these

savings to buy inputs such as improved seed, to

increase producvity.

Moreover, combining agricultural crop and

fuelwood producon saves woodland treesand frees up labour, especially of women, who

tradionally collect wood. For example, the

pigeon pea IFES model in Malawi is a farming

system based on intercropping. Smallholder

farmers combine the producon of staple foods

(mainly maize, sorghums, millets) and pigeon

peas, a nitrogen-xing dual purpose plant, which

delivers protein-rich vegetables for human

consumpon, fodder for animals and woody

material for cooking. Depending on the variety,

the stove technology and the type of meal, one

local plant can provide enough energy for a family

of ve to cook one or two meals in a day.

IFES also provides new opportunies to migate

climate change, especially through indirect Land-

Use Change (iLUC), which increases land and

water producvity, thereby also improving food

security.

Some frameworks are needed for successful IFES

development. In addion to technical means,

there is a clear need to improve the policy

and instuonal environment supporng suchsystems.

Conditions for agroforestry development

While the actual and potential benets o agroorestry have been well documented in severalparts o the world, it is important to note that agroorestry is not a total panacea against ood

insecurity and environmental degradation. Even where it would make a valuable contribution,there are a number o conditions that could work against its widespread adoption by armers.

o be efective and sustainable, agroorestry needs two types o integration: agriculture with trees,and trees with people. o succeed, this integration must have suitable underlying conditions,which may be technical, economic and social.

From a technical perspective, not all combinations o annual and perennial species are viable,and certain tree practices or species may overly compete or water and harbour crop pests thussuitable species and practices must be used. From an economic perspective, armers may beinterested in tree products only when they do not decrease crop production, or where agroorestrydoes not limit their ability to arm with large equipment. In addition, armers need to be

inormed about the protability o any new system.


18/506

Socially, any innovation needs to be accepted by the groups directly involved in the new activities.Diferent societies and cultures may require diferent conditions or success. Within each society,there are early adopters and innovators who can show other armers the benets o changing toa system that includes agroorestry. However, more research is needed to determine the actorsdriving the adoption o agroorestry practices in various rural contexts.

Because agroorestry systems are diverse, vary rom one place to another and can be observed atdiferent scales, any decisions regarding management, policy or governance should be based on arigorous analysis o the advantages o diferent scenarios. Decisions should be aimed throughspecic criteria and indicators o minimum required standards towards successul agroorestrydevelopment that meets local and national priorities. Tis cannot be done without the clear andsustained involvement o stakeholders, as well as o those with competing interests in existing

natural resources.

Box 3 Limits on mber harvesng in Central America

A recent study (Detlefsen and Scheelje,

2011) analyses the body of laws and policies

governing the environmental and forestry

sectors in seven countries of Central

America. Regulaon and control imposed by

governments can either facilitate or constrain

the development of agroforestry.

Three countries (Honduras, Nicaragua and

Panama) have complex, tedious and demanding

permit procedures for the harvesng and

transport of mber produced on farms. Belize,

El Salvador and Guatemala have designed

a simplied permit protocol, although in

pracce, only Belize and Guatemala have an

operaonally simplied procedure. In Costa

Rica, a permit is easy to obtain only if the

harvest involves less than ten trees per year

per farm. Similar regulaon of tree products on

farms is common throughout the tropics.

Wood harvesting in the Amazon.The majority of wood produced

in the Amazon regions isstill harvested in a way thatis detrimental to the forest.Governments can supportagroforestry systems by facilitatingpermit procedures for harvesting oftimber produced on farms.

ICRAF/

TitoMarcos


19/507


Barriers to agroforestry developmentAlthough there is a growing body o scientic literature to illustrate the benets o agroorestry,there are also obstacles to its development and expansion. Te barriers impeding agroorestrydiscussed in the ollowing sections are particularly signicant.

Delayed return on investment and under-developed markets

While the conventional production o agricultural crops destined or the market is expected togenerate immediate income, investing in agroorestry may present various disadvantages.

Although trees become protable as they produce positive net present values over time, thebreakeven point or some agroorestry systems may occur only ater a number o years. Tis

implies that, unlike conventional agricultural, armers may have to absorb initial net losses beorebenetting rom their investment, thereby reducing their enthusiasm or investing in agroorestry.Also, many agriculture projects and programmes need to demonstrate an impact within arelatively short period o time to be considered successul.

Furthermore market inormation systems introduced in some countries, oten do not includetree products. As such, markets or tree products are both less ecient and less developed thanor crop and livestock commodities and value chains related to agroorestry systems receive littlesupport.

Te lack o well-developed markets or agroorestry products, combined with the emphasison immediate returns seen in some agriculture projects and the diculty many armers ace

in investing in activities that have a delayed nancial return, orce many armers to rule outagroorestry as a viable option.

Emphasis on commercial agriculture

Agricultural policies can discourage armers rom practising agroorestry. Incentives oragriculture oten promote certain agricultural models, such as monoculture systems, and taxexemptions are usually aimed at industrial agricultural production. Te amount o creditsupporting this may impact negatively on agroorestry development such as in the promotion ooil palm plantations.

In Brazil, or instance, sizeable tax cuts are ofered to armers producing biouels provided that a

portion o the eedstock is sourced rom smallholders, regardless o the cropping system adopted.Similar incentives are currently encouraging the rapid extension o oil palm plantations in vastareas o the Brazilian Amazon.

Agricultural product price supports or avourable credit terms which are granted or certainagricultural activities but hardly ever or trees, are also discouraging agroorestry adoption.By not including agroorestry in the benet package the system is discouraged, even whileagricultural production becomes more economically dependent on imports and less ecologicallysustainable. Zambia and Malawi are good examples o countries where subsidies or ertilizer area disincentive or armers to adopt more sustainable agroorestry systems.


20/508

Ignorance o the advantages o agroorestryOverdependence on conventional agricultural methods and inadequate knowledge o sustainableapproaches restrict the interest o policy-makers in agroorestry development. Limited disseminationo ideas and inormation prevents the spread o agroorestry systems and in many countries thesesystems are seldom included in the curricula o agriculture or orestry schools.

Limited experience and low capacity among some national extension services, in both traditional andnew agroorestry systems, means that armers are oten reluctant to adopt them. For example, someagroorestry systems require novel management methods, compared with practices that armers arealready trained in and know well.

Lack o knowledge, diferent labour requirements and less established markets lead to more

uncertainties with agroorestry systems. In turn, this leads to scepticism on the part o proessionalsand advisers, who may restrict access to inormation and training in agroorestry systems and thedevelopment o workable technical and business models.

Most research and development eforts are ocused on short-term monoculture cropping systemsand less efort is placed on the potential or improved varieties in multispecies agroorestry systems.Breeding or agroorestry conditions (such as shade tolerance, root morphology, structure phenology)has received relatively little attention.

ree growth and productivity may be relatively low and variable, oten owing to lack o access tobetter-quality germplasm. In developing countries, seed collection, propagation and multiplicationmethods, as well as vegetative propagation, are poorly known, and armers oten have no option

but to protect or transplant trees that have germinated spontaneously. Moreover, because advancedpropagation methods are not disseminated there are many missed opportunities to reduce the timeneeded to ull production. Some promising ways o managing trees on arms (such as intercroppingsystems or soil health or introduction o improved allows) are yet to be introduced to the vastmajority o armers and there are ew nurseries providing a range o native multipurpose trees.

Box 4 Inadequate research and extension services

If local farmers needs are ignored, research and

extension will miss the target. Many examples of failure

in agroforestry development are clearly linked to thisbasic omission.

Extension of agroforestry technologies that are based

on experiments with exoc species and intensive

technologies assessed in very dierent condions and

transferred to another place is usually not relevant.

Research aimed at developing new planng material

somemes pays no aenon to studying the symbioc

relaonships between species and interacons between

species and soils.

In South Cameroon, for instance, the introducon of a

planted fallow system was unsuccessful because farmers

were not facing problems of access to land or shortage

of wood; they therefore saw no reason to shi to a new

land use. Similarly, alley cropping systems did not spreadto drier areas from the humid region of West Africa

where they were tested successfully.

Research and extension systems should not concentrate

solely on the biological eciency of the technology,

but must analyse the economic viability, in terms of

yields and labour-related costs of the soluons they

propose, as well as their social acceptability. It is

essenal that research and extension programmes

involve stakeholders to ensure that the programmes are

relevant, applicable and praccal.


21/509


Tis situation is oten made worse by a lack o publicity or agroorestry success stories, lack oinvestment in improving the productivity and protability o agroorestry systems, and lack ostakeholder involvement such as armers associations in experiments. All these actors result inlittle or no training, weak extension capacity, poor inormation and little quality germplasm or manyagroorestry tree species.

Finally, policy-makers lack knowledge, not only o the benets o agroorestry notably, theincome - earning potential o tree products and the soil-enhancing services they provide but also othe negative impacts o conventional agricultural and orestry production methods. A common belieis that introducing trees into elds will negatively afect the growth o agricultural crops. However,in northwestern India extensive integration o rows o poplar trees into wheat and barley armsby smallholders signicantly increased income without any loss o crop production. Te general

perception o agroorestry is that o an activity peripheral to agriculture and other orms o land useand armers engaged in it may be seen as inerior and old ashioned, compared with those practisingmonoculture.

Unclear status o land and tree resources

Unsecured or ambiguous land tenure, common in developing countries, results in conusion aboutland delineation and rights. Rights to trees may be separate rom rights to land, and both land andtree tenure insecurity may discourage people rom introducing or continuing agroorestry practices.

In many places, lack o long-term rights to land inhibits long-term investments such as agroorestry.When the rights to land are not clearly stated by law, the absence o legal recognition makes any other

measures inefective. Tis can maniest itsel as a conict o interest between the state and land users,especially where state ownership o land appears to be the main inhibitor o action.

Tere are various types o tenure insecurity. In many cases, tenant armers, especially migrants, do notplant or manage trees because tree products belong to the owner. I people do not have title to land,there is a perception that there is no point in investing in trees, which can take a long time or benetsto be realized. Competing claims o tenure rights, such as seasonal rights to communal grazing, andwild res, can jeopardize the protection o trees. Moreover, recent attempts by some governments toattract large-scale oreign investors have heightened the insecurity o rural communities.

In Cameroon, a 1974 land law gave all citizens the right to register and own land, but the proceduresinvolved in obtaining land certicates are too complicated or many rural people. As a consequence,

most armland in rural areas is obtained through inormal customary land rights, while legally ownedby the state, creating a sense o insecurity. In addition, trees growing on land with no title also belongto the state. In those conditions, why would armers have any interest in planting or managing trees onarms? Yet, i potential returns can be made with little investment, armers may plant trees whatever thelandtenurerules;rightoftenure,whilebeingaparameter,hastobebalancedwithprotexpectations.

In some cases, orest regulations inhibit tree growing on arms by restricting the harvesting, cuttingorsellingoftreeproductsandcertaintreespecies;orforestservicesmaycontrolthemanagementand harvesting o trees through permits so that armers who introduce trees into elds are not reeto manage the tree products as they wish. In turn, the permits may be dicult to obtain because obureaucracy, or harvesting may be orbidden altogether. Although sometimes well intentioned, suchprotective measures, when applied to agricultural landscapes, discourage armers rom planting and

protecting new seedlings that emerge.

As ar as land tenure is concerned, there are some constraints that are common to most developing


22/5010

countries. In both legal and customary practice, women and other vulnerable groups, who mayneed to grow more ood (and thus to develop agroorestry), have only limited access to landand resources. Tereore developing private property through tenure laws may create a genderimbalance in land ownership, calling or more innovative approaches.

Generally, tenure rights to armland are more privatized where population pressure is higher orcommercial opportunities are increasing. In such cases, this may result in a positive impact onlong-term investment in agroorestry.

Adverse regulations

Multiple legal restrictions on multiunctional land management and complicated taxationrameworks also restrict agroorestry development. Frequently the agricultural policy itsel

penalizes practices needed to implement agroorestry, while supporting a large-volume, large-scaleapproach to agricultural, ood and uel products.

axes applied to agricultural production may penalize agroorestry practices, as was the casewith the Common Agricultural Policy o the European Union beore 2001, when armerssubsidies were based only on the surace area o crops. Between 2001 and 2010, beginningwith intercropping systems, all agroorestry systems progressively became eligible or subsidiesestablished by the policy, and now all agricultural lands are eligible, regardless o the degree otree cover, except or orests and lands used or non-agricultural production. Te tax regime mayalso be less advantageous or orests compared with agricultural lands, as in the example o France(Box 10).

Oten, when a system exists to assist rural development activities, concretely promoting anagroforestryprojectrequirestheuseofcomplicatedbureaucraticchainstoaccesssuchsupport;or example, the collaboration between agriculture and orestry ministries. In most cases, the legalframeworkactsasadisincentive;whetherthisisintendedornot,thelawultimatelybenetslargearms and investors exclusively.

Even in cases where a specic programme targets agroorestry development, some provisionsmay restrict the introduction o trees on arms, such as in the Philippines, where the UplandsAgroorestry Programme (UAP) targets public support or those planting more than 50 ha, whilemost agroorestry managers are currently small-scale armers.

Lack o coordination between sectorsAs an intervention afecting multiple sectors including agriculture, orestry, livestock, ruraldevelopment, environment, energy, health, water and commerce agroorestry is oten subjectto policy conicts and omissions, creating gaps or adverse incentives that work against itsdevelopment. In addition, when policies are restricted to exclusively sectoral bureaucraticregulations, mistrust between armers and decision-makers is the result.

In many countries, in principle, agroorestry is regarded as belonging to all sectors, but inpractice, it belongs to none and rarely occupies a special line in a governmental body or has itsown policy space. It alls between the agriculture, orestry and environment departments, with noinstitution taking a lead role in the advancement o agroorestry or its integration.

Agriculturedepartmentsemphasizecropproductiononagriculturallands;thusagriculturalpolicies directly contribute to excluding trees rom arms and the landscape. Some orestry


23/5011


departments do not believe it is possible to grow good quality, widely-spaced timber on arms andhave little interest in non-timber trees or the growing o trees with crops and/or livestock on thesame plot o land. Yet, orestry departments are usually mandated to multiply and disseminateall types o tree germplasm. Moreover, environment departments may dislike regulated rows,intensive management and chemical control o weeds. Tis dichotomy exists even where a strongstrategy or developing agroorestry is in place. In Malawi, or example, although agroorestryis clearly highlighted as a technical solution in both the Forestry Act o 1997 and the NationalEnvironment Policy since 2004, agricultural policies still support the extension o cropland, whileorestry policy promotes conservation and ull aforestation.

In conclusion, the harmonization and synchronization o policies and programmes require acombination o policy attention across the departments in charge o rural development, land use,

agriculture, orestry, environment, nance and commerce, at both national and local level.

Why promote and regulate agroforestry through policies?

While the technological and biological aspects o agroorestry systems are important, they arenever sucient to guarantee their adoption or maintenance by armers: social and economicactors are usually important as well. Tis implies that the policy and institutional context shouldplay a signicant role in the development o agroorestry. In addition, due to its long-term nature,adoption may not take place in a policy vacuum, as it oten has to be acilitated by a conducive

policy and by national and local institutional arrangements. Te ollowing issues lay out thereasons why the right policies are crucial or agroorestry development.

To eliminate legal and institutional constraints on agroorestry

An efective policy has to create the conditions or a public or private activity to contributesustainably to the general welare o the country. Where relevant science-based models odevelopment exist as is the case or efective agroorestry techniques and practices thosesolutions should not be impeded by regulatory constraints or prohibitions. In many cases, thesepolicy ailures can override others, so their revision is critical to wider adoption.

To support positive outcomes o agroorestry

Agroorestry generates signicant public ecosystem services, such as watershed protection, soiland biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration and avoided emissions, and also minimizesclimatic and nancial risks. Yet without government involvement in providing greater incentives,the level o private investment in agroorestry will oten be less than socially optimal.

When correctly designed and implemented, agroorestry, especially at landscape level, hasmany benets that contribute to the sustainability o local communities and, on a larger scale,to ecosystems upon which populations depend. However, these environmental and economicservices may not be valued by the market, meaning that development actors and armers haveto assume the costs o production and land-use systems that nevertheless benet the nation.Financial support to armers who are introducing trees onto elds can be considered a orm o

payment or environmental services (PES).


24/5012

Box 5 The Grain for Green (GFG) policy in China: compensang planng farmers

The Grain for Green (GFG) programme was

introduced in 1999 in China, with the aim

of reforesng uplands to reduce erosion,

downstream ooding and rural poverty.

The policy consisted of providing grain, saplings

and/or subsidies, over a period of ve to eight

years in the rst phase, to be extended for another

ve to eight years, to encourage up to 30 million

rural households to voluntarily convert part of

their cropland to forest/grassland, especially

on slopes. To support this strategy, the forest

law was revised to recognize the importance

of compensaon in return for environmental

services.

The central government used scal transfer

payments to oset the reducon in public

revenues caused by the GFG, while local

governments were expected to contribute to

transport and training expenses. From the trial

to full implementaon, GFG applied a top-down

procedure consisng of a vercal administrave

hierarchy.

The interest of farmers, considered core

implementers of the programme, was especially

high, and the level of compensaon somemes

exceeded the previous agricultural revenues.

Those condions led to a spectacular development

of agroforestry technologies aer 2001, mainly

through fruit tree intercropping.

By 2010 the GFG programme covered more than

15 million ha in 20 provinces.

ICRAF/photoarchive

Without policy support, some existing agroorestry models will be underinvested and may notbe sustainable. For example, in some parklands o sub-Saharan Arica increased grazing pressurewill imperil the regeneration o trees, unless local institutions can identiy modied grazingmanagement strategies.


25/5013


To compensate armers or the delay in returnsOten a change in a production system requires investment by the producers, even though it may takesome time beore the new system produces as much as the previous one. Tis is particularly relevantwhen introducing trees on croplands and grasslands, as the productive cycle is longer. Private creditacilities or smallholder agriculture are almost universally unavailable and certainly not or long-terminvestment. Most armers are reluctant to engage in tree planting or managing natural regenerationi they see that their income decreases in the short term. Since many o these investments produceenvironmental services that benet everyone, the associated losses should be compensated. Te levelo community intervention may depend both on the value o the ecosystem services provided and onthe loss o revenue resulting rom the decrease in crop production during the period. For this purposestrong public policies are needed.

Considering the elements mentioned, there are several priority areas in which policy supportis urgently needed, including institutional reorm, land tenure security, and access to resources(inormation, genetic, nancial), markets and incentives. Diferent types o policy interventions mayincluderegulatorytoolssuchas:stateforestprogrammesandlegalregulations;economicinstrumentssuchastaxationsystems,in-kindandnancialincentives;paymentsforenvironmentalservices;andinormation, including education and technical assistance. In all cases, the main goal o the policieswould be to reduce risk while increasing returns on smallholder investment in trees. Te policies shouldalso ensure that monitoring activities are put in place.

Oten the solution is not to have a specialized institution or policy or agroorestry, but to enhancesupport or it by using existing policy mechanisms or regulatory rameworks. In many cases, the

shadow efect o economic or agricultural policy is ar more important than the impact o measuresspecically aimed at promoting agroorestry systems.

Te solution may not be solely restricted to regulatory measures because there is little chance thatagroorestry systems can be promoted by laws alone. In act, any progress will come rom a sound,integrated arrangement o regulations, economic incentives and inormation, to be designed andapplied by all stakeholders.

Box 6 Improved fallow in Zambia: the limitaon of by-laws

Bush res and grazing by livestock were major challenges

to adopng improved planted-tree fallow in eastern

Zambia. In view of this, in 1995 tradional chiefs enacted

local by-laws requiring livestock owners to herd their

animals and forbidding eld burning during the dry

season.

An impact study (Ajayi and Kwesiga, 2003) has shown

poor results from this policy iniave for many reasons:

diculty in reaching the people who were burning elds;

farmers varying interpretaons of the rights and dues

of dierent community members under the by-laws; a

lack of understanding that the aim of the by-laws was

to minimize negave outcomes (and not to be directed

against a parcular group of stakeholders); the limited

eecveness of moral persuasion owing to the declining

power of local authories; unclear responsibility for

implementaon; and confusion between community

and private ownership of fallow areas.

However, those limitaons also provide the framework

for developing an improved instuonal soluon a

win/win situaon. In any case, any policy promong

agroforestry needs to address the issues of farmers

and other stakeholders awareness of long-term

environmental eects and of the economic benets of

diversifying agricultural opons. Economic mechanisms

and informaonal means are both fundamental to this.


26/5014

Drivers of agroforestry developmentContextual drivers

In many cases, prevailing conditions in society and institutions determine the development oagroorestry systems. Tose conditions usually combine ecological drivers, on the one hand, withsocio-economic and cultural actors on the other.

When population density is high on a limited area o arable land, pressure to maximize land useleads to an increase in agricultural practices and demand or soil maintenance. In such conditions,agroorestry models can help solve this dilemma, providing a variety o products while conservingthe uture production capacity o the land. One o the main efective drivers o agroorestry maybe that, in high population areas, there is no more bush or orest available to support a shitingsystem o production or to provide or uelwood and other tree products.

Urbanization and industrialization are boosting markets or a wide range o commodities. Wherethere has been deorestation there is also a high demand or products drawn rom agroorestrysystems, especially when certication and organic or environment-riendly labels can openopportunities in higher value green markets.

In addition, in some places smallholders have no access to mineral ertilizers, because o the highprice and lack o subsidy. Tis is the situation in many Arican countries, where it constitutes amajor driver o agroorestry. In other places, a lack o well-dened land boundaries may also be anincentive or armers to plant trees as live encing also a orm o agroorestry to create privateareas and reduce conicts.

Te particular importance o external contextual actors explains why a policy promotingagroorestry does not necessarily have to address the components o agroorestry systems,themselves, but rather the contextual characteristics o agroorestry practices.

F

AO/AmiVitale

F

AO/GiulioNapolitano


27/5015


Internal capacitiesAgroorestry development is also driven by leading actors and early adopters who can promoteagroorestry systems.

When small and medium-size producers have guaranteed access to land and to tree productmarkets, they can actively engage in agroorestry. Under such conditions armers can compareexperiences and exchange inputs leading to the difusion o inormation and an expansion oagroorestry systems.

Te private sector, including companies and trade associations, can also play a signicant role increating awareness o agroorestry practices that produce a relatively higher-value product, such asruits. With new agroorestry systems, such as improved tree allows and odder shrubs, demand

needs to exist or be created beore private-sector support can be expected.In other contexts, rural community dynamics may serve as a driver o locally based practices,including agroorestry. Tis may be the case in community-based orest management, which canstrongly promote the integration o various systems and optimal use o land.

Policy as a driver

Te role o policies as drivers is mainly to create a avourable economic and institutionalenvironment, in which private local actions can be carried out without signicant restrictions.Permanent or temporary incentives, including subsidies, aimed at establishing markets anddecreasing economic risk in the long run, can enable armers to get involved in agroorestry.

In a context where control is limited, such as when tree planters have to be registered, localorganizations can play an active role in development. Nevertheless, agroorestry developmentusing specic policies is not a sucient solution on its own.

FA

O/SeyllouDiallo


28/5016

Agroforestry:

which policies?

Lessons from success stories

Some lessons can be drawn rom an analysis o the development o national policies supporting agroorestry

systems.

Agroorestry exists only where it is benecial to armers

Agroorestry systems prove successul and sustainable only when they have direct benets orarmers. Tere is no agroorestry success story i incomes decrease considerably, even i only ora temporary initial phase. In most situations, armers may not be willing to wait out a lengthy

investment phase beore realizing revenues. Strategies to ll the initial gap are oten necessaryto the adoption o agroorestry systems. For example, in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, smallholdersplanting bananas in association with palm trees sell the ruit or a higher value through bettermarketing channels, thus ofsetting the lower yields that result rom not using chemical inputs.Generally speaking, i trees are to be introduced into existing cultivated elds or pastures, short-term income is maintained by introducing low tree densities while intensiying agriculturalpractices. Ater some time, the tree products and services will boost income with the aim oraising overall system productivity.

I there is a clear risk o decreasing short-term revenues, although important social andenvironmental benets are expected in the long run, policies should aim to create a benecialcontext or armers introducing trees. For example, it is possible to design agroorestry systems

where a temporal sequence o diferent crops ensures that some annual commodities are harvestedat all stages o tree development (or example, light demanding crops while trees are still small,and more shade-tolerant crops at a later stage).Te importance o economic considerations partlyexplains why most success stories in agroorestry development did not involve signicant inputsrom governmental agencies. In act the private sector has played a signicant role in creatingawareness o agroorestry and supplying seedlings (Box 7), although this may create a culture odependency.


29/5017

PART II - AGROFORESTRY: WHICH POLICIES?

Box 7 The promoon of arabic gum in Niger

The high commercial value of arabic gum has led

to the planng of 200 ha ofAcacia senegaland

Acacia seyalin the region surrounding Niamey,

iniated by the gum-processing companies. Some

40 000 seedlings were distributed free of charge

to interested farmers, and producon ranges

from 8 to 20 tonnes, depending on the year.

Exports of gum have reached 1 500-2 000 tonnesa year.

This development, which fosters a regeneraon of

the whole parkland, is directly dependent on the

commercial interests of the companies in charge

of distribuon of the product. It is quesonable

whether free distribuon of seedlings to farmers

is a good soluon, as it creates economic and

technical dependency instead of promong

innovave behaviour. However, this case

provides an example of a situaon in which

the maintenance of trees in rural areas derivesdirectly from market demand.

Senegal, Thikene Ndiaye - Acacia

Operation. Support to Food Security, Poverty

Alleviation and Soil Degradation Control

in the Gums and Resins Producer Countries

(Burkina Faso, Chad, Kenya, Niger, Senegal,

Sudan). A local villager tending a crop of

acacia trees showing the sap or gum arabic

that is harvested for eventual sale to aprocessing plant. (FAO Project)

Security o tenure rights is important

More than in other agricultural systems, trees on arms require stability and security o tenurerights. Tis is a signicant issue in many developing countries.

Due to the longer period relative to annual crops through which armers testing, adaptation andeventual adoption o agroorestry technologies takes place the importance o property rights is

greater than in many other types o agricultural enterprises and practices.A clear guarantee o tenure rights can support a armers strategy to invest in trees on arms,including in cropland. Only then can armers as investors make plans with the condence thatthe parameters shaping their long-term vision will not change. Tere are ew agroorestry successstories in an uncertain land tenure context.

FAO/SeyllouDiallo


30/5018

Agroorestry is encouraged where associations o smallholders and community-based orestmanagement are supported by public authorities. In the case o customary agroorestry systems(such as parklands and cofee/cocoa associated with ruit trees), a land title may not be essentialbecause the customary tenure systems may have evolved towards providing sucient privaterights (e.g. as population density has increased). Moreover, management o common propertyresources can be achieved i local people are given the right to organize themselves. Agroorestryactually ofers a means or solving tenure conicts: when there is competition or land orsuperposition o uses, it can help armers settle in a specic area and allow both intensication opractices and interplay between livestock keepers and cultivators. rees are also planted aroundboundaries to demarcate property rights between armers.

Agroorestry links sectorsAgroorestry requires coordination and collaboration among high-ranking decision-makersin various sectors, especially agricultural, environmental and orestry bodies. Tis connectionbetween various public services may help where specic measures are elaborated to supportthe process. Tere is need to align visions o success across sectors. While agricultural ministersseek to improve ood production, orestry ministries are keen to raise tree resources overallincluding those rom arms, and thus the two visions may come into conict. At the level oeld implementation, where orestry departments have a mandate or provision o quality treegermplasm, it needs to work with agricultural and environmental departments in identiyinguseul species or arms or riparian areas.

Box 8 Naonal Steering Commiee on Agroforestry (NSCA) In Malawi

Created in 1993 and chaired by the departments

in charge of agricultural research and land

resource conservaon, the Naonal Steering

Commiee on Agroforestry (NSCA) oversees

issues relang to agroforestry. The inclusion of

governmental bodies from various departments,

NGOs and donors acve in agroforestry is an

important strength.

The NSCA helps to disseminate success stories

and links science to pracce at eld level.

It promotes priories for research, reviews

interesng technologies and establishes

priories for disseminaon. Such a commiee

can encourage the best use of research

resources, reduce duplicaon and prevent the

promoon of failed or limited technologies. It

could take a stronger role in strategic issues,

for instance establishment of a road map for

enhancing agroforestry strategies within the

naonal forest policy.

This type of exible and open structure may

play a signicant role in promong policies,

without needing to change the whole context of

instuonal arrangements.


31/5019


A strict enorcing o orest management rules promotes agroorestryIn TeState o Worlds Forests 2005, FAO observes that in many countries bans on cutting treesmay be a disincentive or tree planting on arms. Across all tropical regions, there are manycountries which have highly restricted the cutting and management o a range o speciesvalued by armers, requiring costly permits. Mechanisms are needed to exempt trees plantedin agricultural landscapes rom such regulations. On the other hand, appropriate regulation oharvesting and efective penalties or illegal activities in natural orests could be an excellentmotivation to integrate trees into arms. Under such conditions, industries are encouraged todevelop new sources o wood supplies. Te resulting rise in wood product prices would maketimber-growing more attractive to armers. Such dynamics have occurred in India and Kenyaollowing logging bans in orests.

Where agricultural crops and orest products are not subject to efective sustainable managementpractices, there is no incentive to use resources well. Labour productivity in uncontrolled shitingcultivation and illegal wood harvesting is higher than in a regulated system like agroorestry. Aslong as a collective orest resource is considered open access (or orest products and land), andwhere regulation and monitoring are weak, armers practising shiting cultivation may not wishto intensiy production. In some Arican countries, a lack o control o and the will to control bush res set in some seasons to hunt mice and regenerate grass hinders the introduction o treesinto elds. Common eforts to better manage and restrict those res would support agroorestrydevelopment.

Poor regulation o state-owned and managed woodlands and orests has led to undervaluing

concessions and stumpage charges, resulting in an oversupply rom those sources and anundersupply rom arms. A weak governance context leads to instability and eventually tounsustainability o the local economic system. It never promotes complex integrated systems suchas agroorestry.

Tanzania - Shinyanga SoilConservation Programme.Woodlots provide signicant

income or armers. (ICRAFProject)



32/5020

So what?Ten tracks for policy action

From lessons learned during years o action or inaction, it is possible to draw some generalprinciples or an efective agroorestry strategy. Beore creating agroorestry policy, policy-makersshould be aware o the ollowing:

Alackofnancialcreditisseldomamajorconstraintwhenadoptingagroforestrypractices,due to the small size o arms and scale o operations, the incremental approach that armersuse to plant trees or manage natural regeneration, and the desire o most armers to avoidrisk. In many instances, ofering ree seedlings and inputs, or paying armers to plant trees,discourages investment in germplasm improvement and propagation capacity, sties private

sector nurseries, and encourages dependency all o which is a disincentive to planting whena project ends. Government interventions should promote short and long-term benets andcreate avourable conditions or development.

Policiesmustbeorientedtowardspromotingagroforestrysystemsthatmeetthekeygoalso poverty alleviation, ood security, gender equity and sustainable management o naturalresources. I this were done, agroorestry would shit rom being an exception to being apriority towards sustainable development.

Apublicpolicypromotingagroforestrydevelopmentshouldnotbeseenassimplycreatingnorms. Rather, it should be viewed as a set o actions and tools that create avourableconditions or the development o such systems. In these policies, stakeholder input, access to

inormation, appropriate technologies and extension services, private and public partnerships,and rewards or environmental services and good governance, are more important than theregulation itsel.

Box 9 Agroforestry policy in Kenya

In 2009, responding to deforestaon, and to increasesustainable management of agricultural land

areas while movang farmers to plant trees, the

government enacted a farm forestry regulaon that

requires at least 10 percent of all farms to be under

tree cover. Special funding is being allocated to assist

farmers in regions where these targets were not

already met.

The government is also considering various opons

to increase agroforestry tree seed and seedling

supply to meet the demand created by this

regulaon.

ICRAF/SammyCarsan

Kenya, Kisumu An ICRAF pilot initiative

exploring the potential benefits offered by urban

agroforestry. The aim is to integrate agroforestry

technologies into present peri-urban and urbanfarming practices in Kisumu.


33/5021


Policy decision-makers must believe in theprocess that agroorestry developmentis a good solution. For this to happen,the importance o agroorestry must bedemonstrated within and beyond the elds

o agriculture and orestry, using rigorousevidence and a critical mass o tangiblearguments. Tis may be done through involvinginterested stakeholders rom relevant sectors

and quantiying the cost and benets oagroorestry at both national and local level.Such data are o particular importance whenassessing nancial incentives or armers in theramework o eld projects. Te argument may

be stronger when based on specic criteria andindicators that dene the best local practices inagroorestry and provide conditions or policyintervention.

Spread the word

Raise awareness o the benefts o agroorestry systems among

armers and global society



34/5022

Contexts in which articles o law areconstraining agroorestry development ormore oten specic regulations in orestry,agricultural and rural codes are very common.

ree protection policies dating rom thecolonial era in many developing countries, andland and tree tenure policies and traditions thatprohibit cutting and transporting o trees andtree products, have to be removed or revised.Tey signicantly inhibit the development otree-product markets and armer interest ingrowing trees. Where orest regulations afecttree management, regardless o location, simplesystems should be designed or the registrationo tree armers, who could then be reed rom

costly permit procedures and constraintsregarding the use o their trees.

In Costa Rica the situation changeddramatically when agroorestry systems wereexplicitly included in incentives previouslyprovided or commercial planting o woodlots.A similar example is ound in Niger, where

a relaxing o the states ownership o treesencouraged armer-managed natural treeregeneration, leading to over 5 million hectareso newly generated parkland systems.

Revising the agricultural, orestry andenvironmental norms when those impedeagroorestry development is essential: rst,identiy how policy constrains agroorestry,then, i possible, target changes in regulations(which is easier than changing laws).

Revise the context

Appraise and reorm unavourable regulations, legal restrictions and

restrictive fnancial mechanisms

FAO/AmiVitale

FAO/GiulioNapolitano


35/5023


A secure ramework or tenure rights is aprerequisite or strong agroorestry development.Tis does not necessarily mean completeprivatization o land to reehold (which otencreates obstacles to poverty reduction andgender balance and is not always necessary

to secure land access), but a clarication andconsolidation o community-based rules. Landtenure security is essential to social equity, andshould be a priority or governments. Tis maymean reorming armers rights to access notonly land, but also the resources sustained by theland. Tis could involve linking land and treetenure, developing a legal standard protectingarmers, and devolving rights and responsibilitiesor trees. However, ormal land titling may notnecessarily be the best option. Research has

ound that some customary orms o tenureprovide the security to plant trees, while reducingthe ormalities and costs o administration. Newinexpensive means o providing certicates o

land ownership are also increasingly used whereinsecurity is perceived to be high.

In some cases, the law could require that thisreraming o tenure regulations allow armersto become owners o the land in exchange ora code o conduct promoting sustainability(including agroorestry). In other cases, leasesand tenant contracts can be modied in avouro agroorestry practices, such as throughconditional environmental leases with naturalresource conditions to be met at the end othe lease period. Additional measures linkingagroorestry development with landscapeplanning and village land-use management canhelp. Depending on the social and ecologicalcontexts, community-based land management

may be promoted under detailed rules acceptedby all stakeholders. Whichever tenure system isadopted, it must be clearly stated and must pavethe way towards sustainable rural practices.

Secure the land

Clariy land-use policy goals and regulations

FAO/LucaTo

mmasini


36/5024

Box 10 France: a new agricultural policy recognizing the role of trees in farm systems

In France, the recognion that agroforestry systems

should be encouraged by public measures was slow,

but a complete change in concept and strategy

occurred during the 20002010 period.

In 2001, at the European level, tree-based

intercropping systems were accepted for access

to funding support from the Common AgriculturalPolicy of the European Union. In 2004, the European

Commission launched Arcle 44 for support to

agroforestry. Known as Measure 222, it had to

be formally validated in naonal or regional rural

development plans before becoming eecve. In

2006, agroforestry plots of fewer than 50 trees/ha

were declared eligible for European subsidies.

In France, there were dicules in adapng

Measure 222 to the naonal tax regime, but aer

strong lobbying by AFAF, the measure was adopted

naonally in 2010, giving access to subsidies for

agroforestry plots from 30 to 200 trees/ha. In

the new regulaon, trees in elds are considered

producon factors and do not decrease the surface

area eligible for subsidies. Since then, agroforestry

plots have been fully recognized as agricultural

areas, opening the possibility for tax and funding

advantages, although fences are excluded from the

regulaon. The state devolves the task of funding to

the regions, which has led to some heterogeneity in

applying the system.

In many countries, agricultural and orestryspheres are completely separate and supportedby distinct policy measures and mechanisms.Te dominant technical and economicmodel is based on monocropping o annual

and perennial crops, and segregated treeplantations ollowing silviculture methods.Reection on the societal and environmentalrole o agriculture has generated critics oboth models, so that a new approach torural production is emerging. Agroorestrymust be considered part o the sustainableintensication o agriculture approach, suchas in the conservation agriculture model

promoted by FAO, as a multiple servicesprovider, and not only as industrial production.Tereore agricultural policies that promoteenvironmental conservation, economicperormance and social equity are essential.

Tey may include tax reorm, grasslandintegration and landscape rehabilitation.

In some cases, such as in France (Box 10), asignicant change in consideration o the roleo trees in arming systems came rom a jointlobbying efort by scientists and producers,grouped under the French AgroorestryAssociation (AFAF), directed at nationaldecision-makers.

Create a new approach

Elaborate new agricultural policies that acknowledge the role o trees

in rural development


37/5025


In most cases, institutional reorm and relatedarrangements should reorganize departmentalresponsibilities and improve coordinationbetween sectors. Tis can be done by creatingconsultative bodies and a strategy or osteringcollaboration among staf o diferentgovernmental departments and ministries.Tis reraming should be used only whenclear ocial policy statements have beenapproved (and not beore, as has happened inmany countries). Tese types o institutionsare not the most important part o the policy,but they are a key tool or implementing aclear strategy. Multi-stakeholder orums andinter-departmental meetings can coordinatethe planning and implementation o various

ministries, and public agencies and otherpartners can jointly identiy priorities andstrategies. Trough decentralization, localgovernments can play an important role incoordinating the approach to agroorestry

development and in creating synergies amongthe multiple sectors. Addressing strategiesat this level also brings local governmentcloser to the management decision-makinglevel. Since agroorestry is practised mainlyon arms, it is preerable that intersectoralcoordination be given to agricultural agencies.Integrated land use planning throughstakeholder-based participatory approachescan provide the necessary intersectoralcoordinating and negotiating platorms (ormalor customary, at diferent administrativelevels within a country). Trough such anapproach, stakeholders can assess trade-ofswhen considering potential changes in landmanagement and use (including agroorestry),

thus inorming the policy dialogue.Agroorestry should also bring together urbanand rural areas (territorial approach) andcontribute to a multiunctional productionsystem (landscape approach).

Organize and synergize

Organize intersectoral coordination or better policy coherence and

synergies

ICRAF/WendyStone


38/5026

Agroorestry is more ecient and more likelyto lead to sustainability when the whole valueo trees is taken into consideration. Farmersintroducing trees on arms should be rewardedor the ecosystem services they provide togreater society. Many agroorestry practices

provide such services, to be promoted throughnancial or other incentives in the orm ogrants (lump-sum payments on a unit-area-basis price premium to reect environmentallysustainable practices), tax exemptions, cost-sharing programmes, microcredits or deliveryin kind (especially extension services andinrastructure development).

Tese types o incentives should berestricted to creating the initial conditions

to motivate armers and other land users toadopt and continue agroorestry practices.Other incentives include the environmentalcertication o wood products and othersustainably produced commodities, andbetter integration into the carbon market.Certication o the whole land-use system,at landscape level, is also an option. In thiscase, all products (tree, livestock and cropand by-products) and services (such asecotourism) rom a certied or labelled area

can benet rom the added value broughtby the environmental services. Tis addedvalue can be partly used to pay or auditingo the efectiveness o the practices leading tocertication.

Long-term credit may be o some interest: asbenets to armers planting trees may arriveonly ater some years, it is critical to haveprogrammes extending longer-term credit orsuch purposes. Te value o carbon sequesteredand other environmental services by the treescould even be applied to paying the interest.

Any support mechanism should be designed tobe predictable, long term and consistent witha clear government commitment. It has to besimple, transparent, exible and enorceable.In Brazil, the Programme or the Socio-Environmental Development o Rural FamilyProduction (Proambiente) was an ambitiousattempt by the ederal government to set upPES or armers preserving the vegetation in

their plots and abiding by certain principleso agro-ecology. It ailed because it ultimatelylacked mechanisms or paying armers andmonitoring compliance.

Government intervention is critical indeveloping institutions that help coordinatethe actions o stakeholders and acilitatetransactions at a minimum cost. Teinstitutional stability o PES mechanismsdepends on a set o basic conditions,

including: trust and condence in themonitoring and control process, transparencyin the management o unds, a strong legalramework, political stability, continuousupdating o regulations, and innovations basedon the lessons learned rom experience.

Provide incentives

Create a clear context or PES


39/5027


Box 11 A PES experience: Costa Rica

Costa Rica enjoys one of the most advanced

naonal systems of PES. A naonal forestry

nancing fund (FONAFIFO) was created in

1996 through a selecve tax on hydrocarbon

consumpon, part of which was assigned by law

to subsidize forestry acvies. It was formally

extended in 2002 and 2005 to agroforestry and

silvopastoral systems, according to number of

trees per hectare and under specic monitoringregulaons. Supported by naonal and

internaonal donaons, FONAFIFO aims to nance

small and medium-sized producers through credits

and other mechanisms employing a decentralized

procedure. This mechanism, desned to promote

the introducon of trees on farms, contributed

strongly to reforestaon and aorestaon in Costa

Rica on private and community lands, especially

through agroforestry systems. Over the last eight

years, more than 10 000 contracts have been signed

under PES for agroforestry, corresponding to the

planng of more than 3.5 million trees on farms.

Among the main barriers that producers in the

programme are facing are transacon costs

(27 percent of the amount paid) and bureaucrac

hurdles and slowness in the processing of PES

applicaons.

ICRAF/TitoMarcos


40/5028

advancing agroforestry on the policy agenda, a guide for decision-makers (fao – 2013)

Documents