**5. Classification and characterization of agroforestry systems**

Classifying agroforestry systems including their environmental and site variants took a long time, without reaching a consensus or a global classification. In this context, ICRAF conducted a global inventory of AFS between 1982 and 1987, the results of which resulted in a classification scheme that is generally accepted today [16–18]. This inventory was designed to collect, synthesize, and disseminate information on existing AFS in developing countries. As a result of it, Nair in 1993 concluded that "*irrespective of the sociocultural differences in different geographical regions, the major types of agroforestry systems are structurally similar in areas with similar ecological conditions. Thus, agroecological regions can be taken as a basis for the design of agroforestry systems*." [18]. This project also made it possible to generate a list of the main herbaceous and woody perennial plants reported as components of existing systems and their main uses in different regions. Among the first classifications [7, 16], AFS were grouped into (a) sequential, (b) simultaneous; and (c) linear systems, according to the sequence of the tree component and the crop, and by the type of accompanying crop (annual or perennial). Sequential AFS include *shifting cultivation* and *Taungya* systems (annual crops combined in a forest plantation). In simultaneous AFS, all those combinations are grouped at the same time and placed trees with crops (annual or perennial), or with pastures; while on the live fences, hedges, and windbreaker curtains are grouped. Nair [18] made a grouping of agroforestry classifications into four groups: (1) For its structure; (2) For its functions; (3) Ecological; and (4) Based on socio-economic criteria; although, the first two have prevailed. Knowing the existing classifications allow identifying those AFS most appropriate to recover degraded areas through their restoration. However, when an AFS is used to stop deforestation and the recovery of degraded forest areas, the results may not be satisfactory unless forecasts are taken for the social welfare of the people involved. The known


*Agroforestry: An Approach for Sustainability and Climate Mitigation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105406*

#### **Table 2.**

*Examples of traditional Agroforestry Systems in CA. Source: modified from Combe y Budowski [7] and Nair [16].*

agroforestry classifications are hierarchical and arbitrary because the objective is defined by the user, and organized by components (trees, crops, livestock), temporal arrangements (sequential or simultaneous), and spatial arrangements, among others. Since there is a relationship between the concepts of the definition and the construction of classification, it is important to consider other aspects such as management, forestry, planting densities, establishment and maintenance costs, environmental services provided, and forest production associated with AFS, to avoid ambiguity when classifying it. Some examples of traditional AFS in CA are presented in **Table 2**.
