Dourojeanni, Marc J.

2009 Agroforestry and the environment

ICRAF Amazon Agroforestry 1(2): 3-4

AGROFORESTRY OPINION
Agroforestry systems and the
environment
Marc Dourojeanni
Independent Consultant
It is likely that many have heard the term agroforestry without being exactly clear on its meaning.
Such uncertainty is understandable, as the practice is still being defined today, with different people
often settling on inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory definitions. While certain forms of
agroforestry are indeed as ancient as humankind itself, the practice is nonetheless aided by new
scientific and technological advances that have granted it a special role in the struggle to improve
the quality of human life. Unfortunately, as always seems to be the case, there exist those intents
on taking advantage of this opportunity to justify new aggressions against the environment.
Agroforestry and agrosilviculture are terms given to land-use options that combine benefits and
products derived from trees with those obtained from agriculture, all occurring within the same
space or rural unit. A typical agroforestry system includes a relatively thin spread of trees, beneath
which are grown smaller crop plants, like coffee or cocoa, and/or herbaceous crops such as corn or
beans. The system can also include pasture and livestock, as is seen in the Mediterranean olive
plantations where, beneath the trees, grasses and other edible plants are grown to feed a variety
of domestic animals. In fact, possible combinations of trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants are
many, and as a result humans worldwide have benefited from a wide variety of agroforestry
systems.
It was in the 1960s that scientists first began to understand, through the observation of farmers, the
special value of agroforestry systems as sources of diverse environmental services and as a
sustainable form of production. Increasing attention to the practice led to the establishment in 1978
of the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), better known today as the World
Agroforestry Centre. Since its establishment, ICRAF has been at the forefront of an agroforestry
movement that promises to become a pillar of sustainable development in rural areas. Thousands
of projects financed by millions of dollars in investments are now being implemented throughout
the world, adding to the efforts of millions of families already involved in agroforestry. Just
last August the Second World Congress of Agroforestry took place in Nairobi, Kenya, with the
participation of more than 1400 people an accomplishment that would have been unthinkable just
20 years ago.
At its most basic, agrosilviculture has been grouped into two categories: that which is developed in
the same space at the same time (spatial), and that which is developed more or less in the same
space, but at different times (temporal). A typical example of the former is the stratified use of trees
for shade to protect smaller coffee or cocoa plants, and eventually grass to feed a small number of
cattle. A common example of the latter is the use of rotations beginning with the cutting down of
original forest. Once the soil is exhausted, it is given a prolonged resting period to allow for the
reemergence of secondary forest vegetation. This secondary vegetation, through various natural
mechanisms, reestablishes the soils fertility, and when this occurs the vegetation is cut once

more to allow for a second phase of harvest. This form of cultivation is known as slash and burn,
and generally constitutes a type of migratory agriculture.
The recognized benefits of the first system type are many. To begin, it can add the productive
capacities of trees (timber, fruits, resins, etc.) to those of crops, thus diversifying harvests. The
practice can also benefit certain crops by offering protective shade and recycled nutrients. In
addition, large trees protect soils against water and wind erosion, preserving soil fertility.
Agroforestry systems cannot be easily mechanized, and resulting labor needs benefit rural areas
with dense, poor populations. And while agroforestry systems may offer smaller crop harvests than
do traditional monoculture practices, the loss is made up for by added tree products. Trees also
contribute by reducing costs related to fertilizers and other inputs due to enhanced conservation of
soils and water, and larger numbers of species per unit of area can contribute to the natural control
of disease. As such, the net benefit of agrosilviculture can be higher than that of conventional
agriculture. Even more, those practicing agrosilviculture enjoy a higher quality of life due to
diversification and sustainability of production.
At present, additional benefits are coming to light. Various studies have demonstrated the role of
agroforestry systems for hydrographic basins within the greater landscape, helping to guard against
water crises. Furthermore, agroforestry maintains a level of biodiversity that, although not equal to
that of natural forests, is nevertheless much higher than that found in simple agriculture systems.
Yet perhaps most importantly, given the breadth of agroforestry land-use worldwide and coupled
with its enormous potential for expansion, scientists see the practice as a significant source of
carbon capture and fixation that will only increase in future years. Agroforestry systems should
therefore expand beyond a simple rural context to assume a much more substantial role
among recognized alternatives for minimizing negative effects of climate change. As such,
agroforestry is increasingly present in discussions concerning clean development mechanisms,
particularly since these systems consume considerably less energy than traditional, open-field
systems.
Yet despite considerable benefits to the widespread adoption of agroforestry, there is a worrisome
issue that must be addressed concerning acceptable forms of the practice specifically, the abovementioned slash-and-burn activities that are all too often labeled as agrosilviculture. The practice,
often described as a temporal or rotational form of agroforestry, raises considerable doubts. To
begin, native forest is eliminated. Soon thereafter, once the crops are abandoned and the
secondary forest becomes important, the new growth is also eliminated and burned, releasing
carbon into the atmosphere. As such, there is no environmental gain to the activity. How, then, can
the practice be called agroforestry? To answer this question, one must examine similar activities of
traditional indigenous groups in the tropics. In the past, slash-and-burn practices seemed sensible
among small, isolated groups with a rotation system of hunting and farming territories. These
groups were in fact so few that their overall environmental impact was insignificant, allowing tribal
peoples to benefit from such practices without deforesting large areas. Nevertheless, these same
activities are now carried out over hundreds of thousands of hectares annually, constituting a highly
damaging form of migratory agriculture, notably responsible for the infamous arc of fire in
the Amazon. While destructive slash-and-burn activities are technically illegal, global socioenvironmental standards unfortunately label them as a form of traditional agroforestry.
It is this same socio-environmentalist school of thought, in fact, that labels intensive, mechanized
agriculture a crime while refusing to acknowledge that slash-and-burn farmers are responsible for
just as much damage if not more as they typically occupy areas generally not valued for
agricultural use. Indeed, they waste good land with insignificant production, and fail to respect any
regulations. Both these forms of agriculture eliminate forest, and are therefore inferior to the basic
idea of agrosilviculture that consists of increasing the density of trees in lands previously set aside
for agriculture and livestock. Nonetheless, the twisted idea that slash-and-burn farming qualifies as
agroforestry has corrupted accepted definitions of the practice, serving as yet another
social excuse for absurd and imprudent deforestation.

Most disturbing, however, are the recent modifications to Brazils Forest Code, permitting the
practice of agrosilviculture within legal reserves and areas under permanent protection. These
reserves were created to maintain a balance between farming activities and native or reestablished
forests. According to law, permanent areas of preservation are necessary to protect soils and water
resources, as well as biodiversity. Yet the socio-environmentalist movement, allied with producers,
has peddled the curious notion that agrosilviculture will improve the protective function of forests by
cutting down a portion of trees and planting crops beneath those that remain in other words, doing
exactly the opposite of what agrosilviculture truly proposes, which is to enrich existing
agricultural lands with trees.
definitions to better define objectives and avoid confusion. Otherwise, they may threaten to diminish
all of those proven qualities and benefits of true agroforestry practices, and even put at risk the
terrific idea of using agroforestry to combat climate change. Brazil seems to be the only country in
the world that has taken such a misguided approach to defining agroforestry. All other countries with
specific agroforestry legislation and there are many have promoted only those systems
considered spatial, and never those considered sequential. Their objective is shared and
straightforward to increase the presence of trees in rural landscapes.

As scientists have demonstrated, this rural development option is clearly sustainable and promises
to confront problems resulting from global warming, energy crises, water shortages and the loss of
precious biodiversity. Nonetheless, echoing the words of renowned ecologist Philip Fearnside, we
must not allow agrosilviculture to become just another pretext for further destroying and
degrading our remaining forests.