**3. Farm-forestry and smallholder farms**

In order to cope with extreme climate variation, many smallholder farmers are already implementing practices that maintain complex agrobiodiversity and a higher capacity of their production units to resist such risks [24, 25]. Yet the poor tree cover in agricultural land, world over, suggests poor adoption despite economic viability and environmental benefits of agroforestry systems [26]. Several issues plague the much-desired adoption level at farmers' end. The low adoption of agroforestry, despite huge potential, is explained, among others, by the lack of regulations and guidelines related to harvesting, transportation and marketing of agroforestry produce [27]. The smallholder farms, in particular, suffer from low quality infrastructure *viz.*, access to markets, financial assistance, disaster relief, technical assistance or government support [19] due to remote location in developing countries.

The long rotation of trees hinders their adoption on farms as forest policies in countries like India inhibit harvesting, transport and marketing of certain trees species declared as prohibited species. This discourages farmers in taking tree enterprise in their farms. The purpose of such policy is well intentioned but lacks in desired encouragement to stakeholders in large scale adoption of farm forestry.

Property rights, particularly land tenure, has been suggested to greatly affect adoption of agroforestry on smallholder farms. While longer gestation of tree enterprise along with the annual crop enhances profitability and environmental sustainability of farming, it warrants right to land to encourage farmer to invest in agroforestry, apart from other factors.

There are no supports for agroforestry-based land use practices, similar to those in crop production and inputs such as fertilizer, credit for smallholder farms, which discourages them going for tree-based crop production on their small holdings. In fact, the policy support for fertilizer encourages more fertilizer use rather than going for agroforestry which builds nutrients in the soil over a period of time.

The poor extension system in updating farmers' knowledge regarding sustainable tree-based land management also discourages farmers in larger adoption of agroforestry on their farms in developing countries. Farmers' traditional practice of growing trees on field boundaries does not support the farm profitability and environmental sustainability. Innovative and new ways of managing trees on farms (*e.g.* intercrop systems for soil health) are not yet known to the vast majority of farmers. The combination of suitable tree species with the cropping systems practiced by them needs scientific/technical backup not only about choice of tree species but also the desired silvicultural practices.

Although farm-forestry projects fail for a number of different reasons, one common factor is the inadequate attention given to socioeconomics in the development of systems and projects [28]. The socio-economic studies of agroforestry systems have revealed the vulnerability of farm profit in medium to longer term to output prices. With gestation period of more than a couple of years, the smallholder farmers are not convinced enough to adopt them. Because of higher initial establishment costs, the net capital inflow in the initial years, in agroforestry, is not favorable even for tree species of short duration. This is also true for agri-horticultural plantation where fruit bearing occurs some years later [29]. The right combination of crop and tree species is, therefore, crucial to win the faith of stakeholders.

### **4. Policy reforms promoting agroforestry/farm-forestry**

The policy reforms directly targeting the expansion of agroforestry have experienced good success world over (**Table 3**). The re-interpretation and

**83**

**Table 3.**

*Farm-Forestry, Smallholder Farms and Policy Support – The Way Ahead*

**Country Programme Ministry Activities**

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Food and Agriculture

Ministry of Agrarian Development

Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of member

U S Department of Agriculture

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development

Roadmap for promoting leadership and synergies in agroforestry

Providing a platform for converging the various tree planting programs outside of forest

Facilitates stakeholder linkages within and among national, regional, and international agroforestry and watershed

Strengthening on-farm tree access, reduced punitive punishment for tree cutting, discussion on acess

Supporting research (adaptive trials and demonstration), training

Refining financing mechanisms, enhancing training of extension

Capital investments, grants to businesses and training for improvement of agriculture, forest

Supporting research, tools and information for adoption of

and forestry products

agroforestry

and extension education

Site specific appropriate agroforestry systems and species, availability of planting material, credit and insurance for agroforestry plantation

areas

networks

rights

agents

implementation of the Forest Code in Niger leading to expansion in farmer managed natural regeneration to over 5 million hectares of land [34] is good example. Similarly, granting communities the long-term rights to forest land in return for environmental stewardship of the land (HKM programme), in Indonesia, created a village forest concept (HutanDesa) providing villages rights to benefits of carbon or other environmental services [35]. In response to deforestation, increase in agricultural land area and to motivate farmers for planting trees, the Government of Kenya, in 2009 enacted new Farm Forestry rules requiring farmers to cover 10% of all farms with trees. Guatemala simplified the Forest Act, 1966 regarding procedures for timber harvesting in agroforestry systems resulting in diversification of land use by farmers in their farms as another source of income [36]. Several other countries developed or modified the agroforestry policies. Brazil refreshed agroforestry policy of 1997. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed an Agroforestry Strategic Framework 2011–2016 [37]. France passed an agroforestry policy, in 2010, to establish agroforestry as a legal agricultural land

states

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96942*

action plan 2018–2027

Agroforestry Policy 2014

Rwanda Rwanda agroforestry and

India The India National

Ethiopia Ethiopian National

Niger Reinterpretation and

Ghana National Agroforestry Policy 1986

Nepal National Agroforestry Policy 2019

Brazil The National Program

Farming 2003

EU Rural Development Policy 2007–2013

USA Agroforestry Strategic

*Agroforestry policy and reforms.*

for Strengthening Family

Framework 2019–2024

*Source: Bernard* et al*, 2019; Chavan et al., 2010; USDA, 2019; Smith, 2010 [13, 30–33].*

Watershed and Agroforestry Multistakeholder Platform

implementation of the Forest Code


*Farm-Forestry, Smallholder Farms and Policy Support – The Way Ahead DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96942*

#### **Table 3.**

*Agroforestry - Small Landholder's Tool for Climate Change Resiliency and Mitigation*

or government support [19] due to remote location in developing countries.

The long rotation of trees hinders their adoption on farms as forest policies in countries like India inhibit harvesting, transport and marketing of certain trees species declared as prohibited species. This discourages farmers in taking tree enterprise in their farms. The purpose of such policy is well intentioned but lacks in desired encouragement to stakeholders in large scale adoption of farm forestry. Property rights, particularly land tenure, has been suggested to greatly affect adoption of agroforestry on smallholder farms. While longer gestation of tree enterprise along with the annual crop enhances profitability and environmental sustainability of farming, it warrants right to land to encourage farmer to invest in

There are no supports for agroforestry-based land use practices, similar to those in crop production and inputs such as fertilizer, credit for smallholder farms, which discourages them going for tree-based crop production on their small holdings. In fact, the policy support for fertilizer encourages more fertilizer use rather than going for agroforestry which builds nutrients in the soil over a period of time.

The poor extension system in updating farmers' knowledge regarding sustainable tree-based land management also discourages farmers in larger adoption of agroforestry on their farms in developing countries. Farmers' traditional practice of growing trees on field boundaries does not support the farm profitability and environmental sustainability. Innovative and new ways of managing trees on farms (*e.g.* intercrop systems for soil health) are not yet known to the vast majority of farmers. The combination of suitable tree species with the cropping systems practiced by them needs scientific/technical backup not only about choice of tree species but also

Although farm-forestry projects fail for a number of different reasons, one common factor is the inadequate attention given to socioeconomics in the development of systems and projects [28]. The socio-economic studies of agroforestry systems have revealed the vulnerability of farm profit in medium to longer term to output prices. With gestation period of more than a couple of years, the smallholder farmers are not convinced enough to adopt them. Because of higher initial establishment costs, the net capital inflow in the initial years, in agroforestry, is not favorable even for tree species of short duration. This is also true for agri-horticultural plantation where fruit bearing occurs some years later [29]. The right combination of crop and

tree species is, therefore, crucial to win the faith of stakeholders.

**4. Policy reforms promoting agroforestry/farm-forestry**

The policy reforms directly targeting the expansion of agroforestry have experienced good success world over (**Table 3**). The re-interpretation and

In order to cope with extreme climate variation, many smallholder farmers are already implementing practices that maintain complex agrobiodiversity and a higher capacity of their production units to resist such risks [24, 25]. Yet the poor tree cover in agricultural land, world over, suggests poor adoption despite economic viability and environmental benefits of agroforestry systems [26]. Several issues plague the much-desired adoption level at farmers' end. The low adoption of agroforestry, despite huge potential, is explained, among others, by the lack of regulations and guidelines related to harvesting, transportation and marketing of agroforestry produce [27]. The smallholder farms, in particular, suffer from low quality infrastructure *viz.*, access to markets, financial assistance, disaster relief, technical assistance

**3. Farm-forestry and smallholder farms**

agroforestry, apart from other factors.

the desired silvicultural practices.

**82**

*Agroforestry policy and reforms.*

implementation of the Forest Code in Niger leading to expansion in farmer managed natural regeneration to over 5 million hectares of land [34] is good example. Similarly, granting communities the long-term rights to forest land in return for environmental stewardship of the land (HKM programme), in Indonesia, created a village forest concept (HutanDesa) providing villages rights to benefits of carbon or other environmental services [35]. In response to deforestation, increase in agricultural land area and to motivate farmers for planting trees, the Government of Kenya, in 2009 enacted new Farm Forestry rules requiring farmers to cover 10% of all farms with trees. Guatemala simplified the Forest Act, 1966 regarding procedures for timber harvesting in agroforestry systems resulting in diversification of land use by farmers in their farms as another source of income [36]. Several other countries developed or modified the agroforestry policies. Brazil refreshed agroforestry policy of 1997. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed an Agroforestry Strategic Framework 2011–2016 [37]. France passed an agroforestry policy, in 2010, to establish agroforestry as a legal agricultural land

use qualifying for European Commission agricultural subsidies in the framework of the common agricultural policy (CAP). This helped farmers receive investment support for the establishment of the agroforestry systems on agricultural lands [38]. Asian countries like China (Grain for Green) and India (Greening India) have also embarked on ambitious programs to increase tree cover outside of forests, including some attention to smallholder agroforestry by providing necessary support such as providing market and/or establishing floor price for agroforestry product.

Development programs, such as National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), as a result of increased attention to climate change, have helped advance agroforestry in some countries. Agroforestry has been recommended to make agricultural production and income more resilient to climate change and variability, transformations in the management of natural resources (*e.g.* land, water, soil nutrients, and genetic resources), resulting in higher efficiency in the use of these resources and inputs for production. Agroforestry, for climate-smart agriculture, is now considered as one of the strategies along with institutional and policy options to promote the transition to climate-smart agriculture at the smallholder farms [39]. The Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) endorsed an agriculture climate change adaptation and mitigation framework highlighting agroforestry in 2010. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), similarly, recognized agroforestry as a key climate mitigation method within agriculture [40]. The African ministers of agriculture, in the same manner, endorsed wide scaling up of agroforestry to address climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives in agriculture in 2009.

The recognition of agroforestry in development programs and the reforms enacted highlight the good intention of the planners and policy makers world over. There are several case studies corroborating the resultant impact of the reforms and strengthening the belief on agroforestry production system, yet the evidences fall short of universal replicability due to poor adoption by and large. The climatic and bio-physical constraints, apart from socio-economic constrains, still hinder the desired spread of the successful models across the globe. The region-specific approach to address the issues need further studies to understand the constraints,


*1 Scale: 1 = most important barrier, 2 = important barrier, 3 = less important barrier, 4 = least important barrier, 5 = not a barrier. Source: Faulkner* et al*, 2014 [41].*

**85**

mass movement.

in the Philippines and Indonesia.

*Farm-Forestry, Smallholder Farms and Policy Support – The Way Ahead*

reforms, yet these are crucial for success of agroforestry reforms.

yet some broad consensus on general issues, based on the literature, have been extensively highlighted for limited farmers such as smallholders (**Table 4**).

Policy reforms in agroforestry has played an important role in promoting agroforestry in different regions/countries differently. The policy reforms have helped promote agroforestry, at macro level, in facilitating adoption and expansion, yet there remains some concern related to, among others, tree germplasm multiplication and dissemination, long term private property rights over land and trees, recognition of agroforestry as an attractive investment area within agricultural institutions and programme. Some of these are outside the domain of agroforestry

High quality seedlings production and supply across the farms which need quality trees is crucial. There is good involvement by governments in many instances. In some countries, governments have directly involved in providing seed and seedlings for tree planting efforts in non-agricultural areas to provide watershed protection services. The Ethiopian government, for example, has played an active role in all facets of upscaling tree planting including the establishment of government nurseries and sales at subsidized rates. The Kenyan government has, similarly, supported agroforestry tree seed and seedling supply to meet the newly enacted regulation that all farms must have 10% tree cover. Timber and fruit seedlings are being produced and sold by private sector nurseries, yet seed and seedling systems for tree systems are still not well privatized. The efforts still lack the up-scaling required to provide quality seed and seedlings to different agro-climatic regions. The efforts for local production and supply chain development is warranted with larger role at community and private level. Incentivization and technical back up of such units meeting requirements of region-specific demand of tree species needs a

The likelihood of farmers' ability to adopt and reap benefits from agroforestry enhances with long-term tenure security to land [42] due to longer time periods required in testing, adapting and eventually adopting the agroforestry technologies and practices. Trees require lengthy periods to mature, and, therefore, the goods and services produced can affect the incentives for adoption, distribution of benefits, and the impacts leading to poor incentivization of the agroforestry production programme [43]. Absence of land secure rights have poorly impacted even the development of Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes [44], a selfsustaining model to promote agroforestry. Therefore, there is much to be done on this in several regions. While insufficient long-term rights to land have demotivated long term investment on land including agroforestry, this has also manifest itself as conflict between state and smallholder land users within *de jure* forest land such as

Agroforestry is getting recognition in agricultural strategies, but often merely in a list of options for addressing sustainability. The capacity for agroforestry to generate income is hardly ever recognized in policy documents and, therefore, the associated policy support for its profitability at farms, particularly, smallholder is not quite evident. The micro studies conducted on agroforestry profitability provide ample evidence in favor of market linkage in general and price in particular. The long gestation period of tree harvest postpones the positive net returns flow because of higher initial costs of tree establishment. Smallholder farmers are quite susceptible to initial cash inflow and outflow in sustaining the production enterprise.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96942*

**5. Policy reforms implications**

#### **Table 4.**

*Barriers to adoption of agroforestry technologies.*

yet some broad consensus on general issues, based on the literature, have been extensively highlighted for limited farmers such as smallholders (**Table 4**).
