Agroforestry systems and trees outside of forest
Agroforestry is an umbrella term for a wide range of practices and situations in which trees are allowed to grow or are grown on farms and in agriculturally used landscapes. Specific terms for specific forms of agroforestry are needed before we can understand the strengths and weaknesses of the use of woody perennials as providers of goods and services, and appreciate the opportunities for and threats to their further enhancement. The RAFT framework provides guidelines for the description and analysis of the ways trees are used and of use to rural livelihoods.
Objectives of RAFT
- Provide clarity in terminology on agroforestry practices, systems and technology appropriate for local use and open to global comparisons.
- Describes the relation between ‘domestication’ from perspectives of trees as biological resource, control over access to resources and knowledge/belief systems.
- Initiate more detailed data collection on input and output streams in various phases of the lifecycle of an agroforestry system.
- Appraise strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats jointly with the main stakeholders to plan for applied research and development support.
Steps in RAFT
1) Terminology
2) Use of trees in space and time
3) Tree management and domestication
4) Local ecological knowledge and IPR
5) Component interactions
6) Input/output relations and profitability assessment
7) Tree and land tenure and policy issues
8) SWOT of the AF technology
1. Terminology
a. Local identity and sensitivities around words such as ‘forest’
The names for agroforestry technologies in any local, national or international language may refer to a dominant commodity, to the way it is managed and/or to a form of semi-managed woody vegetation (garden, forest). Translating the terms between languages is not easy, as the values embedded in the word may be lost or changed. Specific attention is needed where the word ‘forest’ implies control by the State. ‘Community-based forest management’ or ‘agroforest’ may refer to the same vegetation, but implies different political control. The sensitivities around terms need to be carefully explored with local informants of different backgrounds, including male and female respondents, farmers, landless peasants and government officials.
b. National scale institutional earmarks on forest and trees outside of forest
An ‘objective’ descriptor such as the degree of crown cover by woody perennials may allow monitoring by remote sensing, but does not match current national policies or categories used in tracking ‘deforestation’ and ‘forest degradation’. There is growing recognition for ‘trees outside forest’ as providers of goods and services, but such trees may still fall through the cracks of a ‘forestry’ versus ‘agriculture’ dichotomy.
c. International comparison in meta-land use systems
To ease global comparisons, the ASB Partnership for the tropical forest margins introduced a terminology of ‘meta land uses’ (van Noordwijk et al., 2002), as follows:
d. International agroforestry terminology
“Present classification schemes confuse agroforestry practices, where trees are intimately associated with agricultural components at a field scale, with the whole farm and forest systems of which they form a part.” (Sinclair, 1999). “In fact, it is common for farming systems to involve the integration of several reasonably discrete agroforestry practices, on different types of land. The purpose of a general classification is to identify different types of agroforestry and to group those that are similar, thereby facilitating communication and the organized storage of information.
2. Use of trees in space and time
Topics to explore:
- Key concepts for analysis of rotational and internal regeneration systems
- Key concepts for analysis of spatial configuration of trees
- Landscape niche where the system fits
- Response to climate variation, seasonality, fire, drought years
- Ethnobotany and ethnozoology: how and what do local people know about plants and animals
3. Tree management and domestication
Survey of trees in the system:
Origin:
spontaneous growth in situ, transplanted from wild, derived from nursery with local/external seed source, grafted with local/external budwood;
Ownership:
use rights for fruits, falling branches and other non-destructive plant parts, use rights for timber, bark or other destructive harvest products;
Use
for local consumption and use, for marketed products, as provider of specified environmental services (incl. slope stabilistion, provider of mulch, N2 fixation)
Compare results with thresholds in tree domestication (open access use, regulated use, managed regeneration, planted, selective propagation, breeding) - stepwise changein technology, resource control and knowledge/beliefs.
Classification systems for land, animals, plants and markets
|
Land |
Open access (de facto) |
L1
|
| Community controlled land and resources |
L2
|
|
| Community controlled land, private resources |
L3
|
|
| Private control |
L4
|
|
|
Plant resources |
Propagule source: 'natural' |
P1
|
| Propagule source: locally selected |
P2
|
|
| Propagule source: externally obtained |
P3
|
|
| Propagule source: externally 'improved' |
P4
|
|
| Growth: reducing competitors |
G1
|
|
| Growth: Securing symbionts |
G2
|
|
| Growth: fertilizer |
G3
|
|
| Growth: irrigation |
G4
|
|
| Growth: drainage |
G5
|
|
| Flowering induced |
R1
|
|
| Pollination & fruit set stimulated |
R2
|
|
| Protection from frugivores |
R3
|
|
| Advanced harvest techniques |
H1
|
|
| Post-harvest processing |
H2
|
|
|
Animal resources
|
Harvest from wild, managed wild populations, domesticated stock with uncontrolled/controlled mating, specific selection of parentage ; roaming free, controlled range, stall-fed |
A
|
|
Market |
Local use within village |
M1
|
| Use (buyers) within district/province |
M2
|
|
| Use (buyers) at national scale |
M3
|
|
| Regional markets |
M4
|
|
| International markets |
M5
|
4. Local ecological knowledge and IPR (Intellectual Property Rights)
List of topics to explore:
- Ethnobotany: the components of the local system, their properties and potential use
- Explanatory ecological knowledge of relationships
- Management practices, skills and technology
- Socio-cultural value of trees and tree products
5. Component interactions
Issues to explore:
Interactions between target trees and other system components: other trees, weeds, crops, domestic animals, pests, diseases, pollinators, seed dispersal agents.
6. Input/output relations and profitability assessment
Issues to explore:
- System phase (year T0 – T1, T1 – T2, etc)
- Input (type, volume, current price), Labour, Land rents
- Output (harvested products, volume, current price)
- As basis for PAM analysis of profitability (see separate brief?)
|
Economic importance |
| A. Locally used forests: Local trees/forest provide for local needs with some occasional surplus for local exchange (fruit, fodder, firewood, timber, medicine) |
| B. Community-based forest management: Surplus production of trees (forests) with household utility value is common, access to viable market demand is limited |
| C. Agroforests: Surplus production is common and sale of tree products is (at times) a significant contribution to household income |
| D. Tree plantations: Trees are grown explicitly for markets of one-off ‘destructive’ products (such as timber, bark or roots for medicinal purposes) of limited household utility |
| E. Tree crop plantations & horticulture: Trees are grown explicitly for markets of repeatable ‘non-destructive’ products (such as resins, latex, fruits, tree seed) of limited household utility |
| F. Advanced markets: Access to markets is becoming limited due to consumer requirements - e.g. certification of tropical timber, quality requirement for foodstuffs & medicine, concerns over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) |
7. Tree and land tenure and policy issues
Rights to land may follow different dynamics than rights to trees, both in the local traditions and by national law. Often the rights to future benefits of a tree accrue to the planter’s inheritors. Trees derived from natural regeneration, even if they grow in between privately owned planted trees, may still be seen as public goods – as the example of durian trees in rubber agroforests in Sumatra shows. Trees can often be pawned.
8. SWOT of the AF technology
At the end of a RAFT, an analysis of strength, weakness, opportunities and threats (SWOT) will provide a good way to synthesize, jointly with local stakeholders.
References
Michon, G., H. De Foresta, P. Levang, and F. Verdeaux 2007. Domestic forests: a new paradigm for integrating local communities’ forestry into tropical forest science. Ecology and Society 12(2): 1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art1/ .
Roshetko JM, Purnomosidhi P and Mulawarman . 2005. Farmer demonstration trials: Promoting tree planting and farmer innovation in Indonesia. Participatory Research and Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: A Sourcebook Volume III. Peru, Lima. International Potato Center (CIP). P. 1-8. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/publication?do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=BC0180-05
Ruthenberg H. 1976. Farming Systems in the Tropics. Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, F.L. 1999. A general classification of agroforestry practice. Journal Agroforestry Systems 46: 161-180
van Noordwijk M, Williams S and Verbist B. 2001. Towards integrated natural resource management in forest margins of the humid tropics : local action and global concerns.. ASB Lecture Notes 1-13 (Full Package). Bogor, Indonesia. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, SEA Regional Research Programme. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/publication?do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=LN0017-04
Vandermeer J, van Noordwijk M, Ong C, Anderson J and Perfecto Y. 1998. Global change and multi-species agroecosystems: concepts and issues. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 67: 1-22. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/publication?do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=JA0129-04
Wiersum KF. 1997. Indigenous exploitation and management of tropical forest resources: an evolutionary continuum in forest-people interactions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63: 1-16
Site for RAFT:
Batang Toru, North Sumatra Province, Indonesia
Printed Flyer - English
back to top