t2~~t.&-~c.-s. *~~<S <Ar,, ­

-n,.- ~ ~-;

2.

.~v-,.-*;--., - - A ~

-,.2-,2~ ~

,.~ ,-,,- ­

~~iyij -. ~ ~ -­

<A '~ .~~'~' '2

I / -'2

-, - ­

v-.. ~..

~

~ 2''

--- ~i;4.'*~- ~ -- 3'.-- - - - - -. -~

~J - ­

-,-; -~ ,,. -~ - - / ­

-' ~ r-.'~­.; - -- -~ - ~-~"" -~ ~2~_________

_______ ~

~-V-'' 2-~' -3

---'a- - ',.,' 4 ~ -~ ,~

2.~~2- ~ .--- - . - ~ -q4 -2----~22~4''~ -4 --.. -­

.4.2'- - - 4~ 2~ 24~22 32.2--. - 4'''>~?~..~ -- .-2 ­

- . ~ ~ I ~ 4~'444

~ ;Yj,~ ,~t22- 2,a- -. ~2"~ 22 A~: ~ ,*., - -, ~ '4,22-..- ,~ 44 - 2-~--3~-' 4,~a-2' - ~- _ 2--.~ -~

~ ~ 2'~2~~2.~4a- ~3~ 2 -~

A-2-A'-3~ *-4'~-.'~.. $ , -~ "4-~ ~'

--.,4<~.-4~24~

-- ~-~2-.~2-

Y---.. ~4 - - - ~ - 2- -.

.'~~~2., - ­ - , -

~' -~ ~ 44 ~ 2 - '2

3,-'

The Potential of Agroforestry Keynote Addresses delivered during the 10th Anniversary Conference of the Internationc, Council for Research in Agroforestry

7-11 September 1987

ICRAF

Published in March 1988 by the International Council for Research in Agroforestry ICRAF House, off Limuru Road, Gigiri P 0 Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya

Copy Q International Council for Research in Agroforestry 1988

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be recopied, s5t d in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN 92 9059 041 6

Design and typography: Justice G Mogaki, P 0 Box 74611, Nairobi Wordprocessing: Marie N B Kimenye Printed by: Man Graphics Ltd., P 0 Box 12714, Nairobi

Contents

Address Delivered on the Occasion of the Inaugurationof ICRAF House on 8 September 187 1

Hon J J M Nyagah

Address Delivered on the Occasion of the Formal Openingof the Conference on the Role of Agroforestry in ImprovedLand Use

7 Hon W Ndolo Ayah

Agroforestry and Improved Land Use 11 H A Steppler

Agroforestry in Asia. The Promise of Agroforestry-for Ecological and Nutrition Security 19

M S Swaminathan

The Present and Potential Role of Agroforestry in South and Central America 42

Armando Samper

The Present and Potential Role of Agroforestry in Africa 63 S C Nana-Sinkam

Policy and Research Priorities for Agroforestry 70 G E Schuh

Fueling the Forest 81 J H Hulse

ADDRESS DELIVERED ON THE OCCASION OF THE INAUGURATION OF THE COUNCI.'S NEW HEADQUARTERS, 8 SEPTEMBER 1987

Hon J J M Nyagah, E G H, M P Minister for Environment and Natural Resources

Government of the Republic of Kenya

Hon J J M Nyagah, E G H, M P, is Minister for Environment and Natural Resources in the Government of the Republic of Kenya.

I bring to you the greetings and best wishes of accept your invitation to come and officiallymy President, H. E. Daniel arap Moi, who, if inaugurate this your beautiful ICRAFit were not for other pressing matters and headquarters, in the presence of so many ofduties of state, would have liked to be here in your friends - coming from home here in Kenya,person and share with you this great occasion and many others from many other parts of theof inaugurating this your new permanent ICRAF world. headquarters. It then thus fell upon me to

Kenya is proud and very happy both to play host to ICRAF and to be so very closely associated with its activities. It is with this in mind, therefore, that I have great pleasure in extending to all of you a warm welcome to our country, and to thank all of you who have been able to make it for this important inauguration ceremony of this ICRAF's new headquarters building.

iCRAF, though barely ten years old and thus a relatively young institution and small in size, has in reality demonstrated all the signs of maturing into a giant. So far, and very rapidly too, its catalytic impact as a council is already being felt throughout much of the tropical and sub-tropical developing world.

Mr. Chairman, I must endeavour as much as possible to avoid repeating the Kenya version of the case for agroforestry and other related research - for I have reason to believe 't was made yesterday by my colleague, the Minister for Research, Science and Technology, the Hon. Ndolo Ayah. It is also my earnest hope and belief that our Kenyan participants and observers in this conference will no doubt reap richly from the exchange of views and ideas emanating from the discussions and papers read here by world experts in their various fields of expertise.

Touching briefly on the history of iCRAF, I am informed that it was in 1977 at the Royal Tropical Institute in the Netherlands that ICRAF had its humble beginnings; then the following year, it moved its offices to our capital city of Nairobi. We in Kenya like to think that in selecting Nairobi as ICRAF's headquarters, the founders must have seen in Kenya some usefully relevant facilities: such as adequate scientific resources, telecommunications, regional development partners, and a variety of climatic conditions useful for research in agroforestry, etc. We thank them, through you, for the honour thus bestowed upon and accorded to Kenya for allowing Kenya to play such a useful scientific role for the world, and for the world's benefit and interest to mankind as a whole.

In appreciation of this the Kenya Government has reciprocated by providing every assistance within its powers and ability to ICRAF, in material, moral and diplomatic services.

It is Kevya's hc.pe and conviction that with this kind of atmosphere, the Council will be enabled to develop and grow, so that it can deliver all the agroforestry benefits to all countries of the world. That the evidence of such an atmosphere prevails has been clearly demonstrated by the confidence ICRAF enjoys from many donors and from all of you

2

collaboratirg countries and scientists. It is with such confidence that ICRAF has been enabled to acquire and develop such a magnificent headquarters as this we see here at Gigiri today.

I clearly recall that it was in 1978 that the Kenya Government signed an agreement with the Council giving it some diplomatic privileges.Following on this the Government, in order to assist the Council demonstrate and try agroforestry ideas, allocated free of cost a 40- hectare piece of land to be used as a field station. I am pleased to note that ICRAF in our opinion has not disappointed us, in that it has developed that piece of land adequarely and turned it into a station that has become an agroforestry showpiece.

I am glad to say on behalf of the Kenya Guvernment that ICRAF has unselfishly allowed us to use that Station as a training and delmonstration site for our own national farmers, extension officers, students and Government leaders.

We have also frequently put the Station on the itinerary of rany visitors who come to learn about Kenya's field development programmes; and I do also understand that there are even more international visitors to ICRAF itself who pass through it every year. It has truly been an

eye-opener to both the researchers and other visitors. It is located a short distance from Nairobi and situated in the semi-arid environment of Ukambani, Machakos, near our Kenya Arid and Semi-arid Research Station of Katumani - a worthy adjacent ic-ighbour to ICRAF, where FAO activities are also in evidence.

It was because of the nature of ICRAF's work that a request to establish its offices at a more appropriate location, outside the centre of Nairobi City, that donation of this site measuring 2.8 hectares on freehold terms out of some prime forest land, for the construction of this permanent ICRAF home, was made. This was done about two years ago, and I am pleased to note that over that very short period ICRAF has been able to erecc such a beautiful modern headquarters.

To me the location of this site is especially significant in four ways:

I. it is in a quiet environment in which we expect ICRAF to intensify its effort comfortably to produce more ideas, technologies, etc.;

2. being near or really within the forest area, ICRAF will be inspired to work more seriously to see forest brought bacK in

3

the form of agroforestry in many empty spaces of Kenya and in all other parts of the world;

3. we hope too that by being next and adjacent to the United Nations Complex charged with the environment and human settlement, (i.e., UNEP, HABITAT), ICRAF will join hands in using agroforestry to solve some of our pressing environmental issues;

4. finally it is also my hope that the Kenya Technical Teachers' College next to it will learn a lot of agroforestry techniques to pass on to our schools.

Besides the latter, yet another more significant benefit Kenya enjoys is the agroforestry knowledge our institutions and scientists tap from ICRAF through training, the library, publications, the Field Station, collaborative field exercises and indeed interaction with your professionals. This interaction has been .available in many sites ICRAF uses as a testing ground for agroforestry research and development methods in Kenya. I must confess here that while ICRAF experts are analyzing and refining those results, our extension staff, NGOs and farmers have taken the techniques, and have in fact applied them on their farms in whatever raw form they

are. I can assure you that our Government has taken agroforestry seriously.

Mindful of the rapid growth of population and the rather static, or diminishing, forest resources, the Kenya-USAiD five-year agroforestry programme entitled -the Kenya Renewable Energy Development- (KRED) was mounted. The programme support came to an end last year, leaving behind very interesting results. Three Kenyan ministries participated in this project, viz. the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the Ministry of Energy and Regional Development. Through thiq project eight agroforestry centres and sub-centres have been established. These offer a training and demonstration ground for our farmers. The momentum agroforestry has gathered is great. The demand for multipurpose trees far outstrips the supply from our nurseries. Our National Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) is hard at work to try and satisfy this demand.

Like all other countries in the tropics that are faced with rather pressing problems, Kenya is always continually and seriously searching for a solution through the potential of agroforestry practice.

Three decades ago, we could have been deceived into believing that our land and our forest

resources were inexhaustible; but we now see the folly of it, for it has taken only a short time for our population to more than double, thus creating unexpected pressure. on the land, affecting food and wood production, and causing shortages in the supply of shelter and forage;and we have found that indeed the demands placed on thes2 resources for livelihood have trebled. We now realize that under these circumstances the day is not far off when the full fury of problems related to food deficit,soil erosion, fertility decline, woodfuel shortages, overgrazing and fodder shortage, as well as water supplies deficiencies, etc., will paralyze our very survival. Whereas out of fear or disbelief we refuse to contemplate such a furious scenario, we cannot ignore the reality that there is right now in the world's poorest of the poor, in the developing world, millions of people going hungry and thousands and thousands starving.

It must be stressed that the concept of agroforestry is people-oriented, particularly the rural subsistence communities whose humble existence does not require the expensive modern mechanized methods - people who simply need to produce their own food and fuelwood for survival,

It is in agroforestry that we see that potential for the solution for at least some

part of the problems we are faced with, particularly in Africa.

I have mentioned all these problems, issues and achievements above in the same spirit that brought you together in this inauguration - the spirit of co-operation and frank exchange of ideas and experiences from which concrete actions and achievements would and must ultimately arise.

I have no illusion whatsoever that the problemsfacing our farmers today can be solved by a single institution such as ICRAF. It must be a co-operative effort of many agencies; and that is why we welcome the joint efforts of ICRAF and the distinguished scientists assembled here from all over the world to consult one another on the problems, concerns and needs of agroforestry.

I am convinced that nothing less than the concerted efforts of nations and scientists can stave off the problems facing mankind.

Before I finally pronounce this new ICRAF House officially inaugurated, let me repeat the invitation I made to all our visitors to Kenya at the beginning. I welcome you and wish you a very comfortable and profitable stay during the whole conference.

I do wish to add here that since you are in Kenya - and I know that time is not in your favour - you do try to see as much of our ccuntry and people as you can. We are a young country compared with some of you - and therefore striving hard to develop. During the last 24 years or so we have made rather striking progress in a wide field; scientifically we are on the run and ready to make use of the expert findings and research results that are good for our people and our country.

Socially and politically, Kenya has been guided by the ideals and beliefs of our founding political leaders - the late Mzee Jomo Kenyatta and by our beloved President Daniel arap Moi. The ideals were founded on the need to preserve the dignity of man through peace. Democratically we have a constitution that guarantees maximum freedom for all citizens for the good of Kenya and the world in which we live. The rule of law is paramount and no-one is exempt from observing it. In the past a number of people have briefly visited us from overseas, and have gone back to their homes where they have painted gloomy pictures of Kenya. I do ask you to please take this opportunity since you are here to see if we really are what the press overseas says we are. Feel free to see and learn and then when you get back home, you will have accurate and fair

information about Kenya to pass on to your friends.

Our President and the Government mean well for our people and friends visiting us. We as a Government do whatever is humanly possible to maintain human dignity in conformity with the ideals and beliefs formulated by our nation's founding fathers.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, I see that I have said much more than I promised at the beginning of my speech. Let me therefore bring this to a stop by saying how very pleased and honoured I am to have been asked to inaugurate this new ICRAF headquarters.

6

ADDRESS DELIVERED ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL OPENING OF THE CONFERENCE ON THE ROLE OF AGROFORESTRY IN IMPROVED LAND USE

Hon W Ndolo Ayah, M P Minister for Research, Science and Technology

Government of the Republic of Kenya

Hon W Ndolo Ayah, M P, is Minister for Research, Science and Technology in the Government of the Republic of Kenya.

On behalf of the Government and the people of conference coincides with the 10th anniversarythe Republic of Kenya, and the entire celebrations of ICRAF and the inauguration of scientific community in this country, I warmly the new ICRAF building. The mcod of the welcome you to our country. We are glad that celebrations and the pleasant environment so many of you were able to come and offered by the beautiful modern facilities in participate in this important conference. The this building should augur well for the

technical conference and the scientific seminar to follow hereafter.

This occasion brings together eminent scientists, development planners, decision-makers and, like myself, politicians. You represent countries with diverse ecological and socio-economic circumstances, varying sizes ano political systems, and, indeed, you reflect expertise in diverse scientific disciplines.But you all share a common interest ­agroforestry research for development - for the sustenance of production and productivity and, ultimately, for the welfare of mankind and those other forms cf life that inhabit this earth.

The international media and reports from scientific fora like the one gathered here today are all pointing to and warning of a gloomy future - a future of declining resources and increasing population with consequences of environmental degradation, poverty, hunger and conflict. I wish to believe that many governments have taken heed of these warnings and have designed country programmes for sustainable development in order to avoid pitfalls that are so imminent,

Ten years ago, at the United Nations Conference on Desertification held in Nairobi in 1977, it was estimated that the world would lose close

to one-third of its arable land by the turn of this century. Loss of production land must be viewed against a rapid increase in humanpopulation, increased demand for food, water, fuelwood, shelter, animal products, better environment and higher standards of living. The challenge is how individual nations and the international cotmunity can marshal resources to reverse the trend.

Our experience in Kenya has shown it is not an easy task, but we have identified a few keyelements to overcoming the problem. First, there must be political will and support for development programmes that address themselves to better land use and conservation of the productive potential of land. We have been lucky in Kenya in that our head of state, His Excellency President Daniel Arap Moi, is a man of vision, and has had the foresight to foresee what the Kenyan scene will be at the turn of the century and beyond. He has mobilized the population such that government ministries, the government odministrative machinery at all levels down to the smallest administrative unit, the ruling par- and farmers have all gotinvolved. His vision is that development programmes of this nature that do not have grassroot support cannot succeed.

Secondly, institutions dealing with research and extension must be supported, the former to

8

generate the desired technology and the latter to disseminate the research findings and to train end-users. In this respect, research and extension services in the agricultural, forestry, water and livestock sectors continue to be supported by public funds. A sub-sector of this element is the co-ordination of activities so that scientific institutions serving various sectors address themselves to a common goal, appreciating the possible negative implications that one activity may have on the other.

The third element is the recounition that non-governmental organisations play an important role and that such activities must be recognized and encouraged provided that they do not cause conflict,

Fourthly, the rural population who are the implementers of the programmes being promoted must receive the necessary incentives and motivation since their activities are not only of benefit to themselves and their immediate families but also to their neighbours.

Finally, Kenya recognizes that science and scientific knowledge are international and that the potential exists for exchange of knowledge, expertise and materials. Kenya is an open society, ready to receive such knowledge and adapt it to her peculiar conditions. We are

also ready to share our experiences with any other country that may so desire. My country has appreciated tapping international knowledge, which has added to our strengths in tho national development effort.

In highlighting the above issues, I have not forgotten that this conference is on agroforestry. On the contrary I am stressing them because the application of agroforestry could make a major contribution to the well-being of our people. But the circumstances under which agroforestry innovations and interventions are to be made are complex and point to the need for marshalling multidisciplinary teams with expertise in planning, agriculture, forestry, livestock production, climatology, geography, economics, anthropology, etc., in order to more fully understand the issues involved. Fortunately, agroforestry research and development are late arrivals on the applied sciences scene and can avoid past mistakes and pitfalls that characterized research efforts in other sectors.

Mr Chairman, permit me to state that Africa requires special attention in the development of agroforestry research. There is, in the first instance, a major gap in the knowledge and understanding of the tropical environments under which agroforestry ooerates. Secondly,

9

the productive potential of the land, for example soils, is fragile.

Thirdly, the development challenges of Africa are complex and demanding and, finally, the requisite scientific human resources are scarce compared to other continents. It is in this context that I feel Africa requires special attention from ICRAF and other institutions involved with agroforestry, international development agencies, and multilateral and 'ilateral institutions. Special assistance is required in the fields of training and institutional development. This calls for infusion of additional resources at both national and international levels.

A stdrt has been made through ICRAF's programme on agroforestry research networks for Africa. The programme has, within two years, managed to unite and bring scientists from national sectoral institutions to plan agroforestry research in their respective countries and to share their experiences with other countries with similar ecological settings. I am informed that similar networks are planned for Latin America, India and Southeast Asia. The networks should go a long way in assisting collaborating countries in the sharing of resources, information and material in the spirit of South-South dialogue. In the final anialysis, however, it is the responsibility of

individual countries to strengthen their scientific potential in order to participate meaningfully in such ventures and to sustain such developments within their boundaries.

Mr Chairman, let me reiterate my country's warm welcome to you. I hope you will find time after the conference to visit some places in Kenya and enioy the hospitality of the Kenyanpeople. A you are invited to visit Kenya at some futu,_ date either individually or as groups from your regions and countries. It is a pleasure having you in Kenya. I wish you the best in your deliberations and a very successful conference.

I now have the pleasure of declaring theconference offically open.

10

AGROFORESTRY AND IMPROVED LAND USE

Prof. Howard A Steppler Chairman of the Board of Trustees

international Council for Research in Agroforestry Nairobi, Kenya

* - A Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of tie Plant Sciences Department, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, Professor Steppler is a trustee of the International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) and a former trustee of CIAT and ISNAR. He was Director-interim of the Southern Africa Council for Co-ordination of Agricultural Research (SACCAR), 1983-1984.

I would like to present three sets of ideas to recommendation of 1977 to establish a council. you in opening this most prestigious conference Secondly I would like to share with you some ofcelebrating the 10th anniversary of ICRAF. my thoughts on concepts of improved land use;

and, thirdly, I shall place before you some ofFirst, I shall briefly look at some of the the issues which I believe must be addressedantecedents of ICRAF and that momentous when we consider a role for agroforestry in

11

that search for improved land use.

This anniversary celebration and these conferences taking place this week pay tribute to the wisdom and far-sightedness of IDRC, in particular its president and Board of Governors, in initiating the study in July 1975 which led to the formation of ICRAF in 1977. Albeit the objective of the study was to examine the problems of tropical forestry and to identify pertinent research priorities, I should mention that this was not the first such study of IDRC. Gilles Lessard, then Associate Director for Forestry at IDRC, had held consultative meetings of foresters in Dakar in 1974 - the first such meeting to be held anywhere in Africa. This meeting resulted in a programme with, among other things, four specific projects in agrisilviculture (Sanger 1977).

In 1977 Bene and his co-workers at IDRC released their seminal publication, Trees, Food and People: Land Management in the Tropics.- This accomplished two things: first and foremost it institutionalized the problem of the interface of forestry and agriculture and, secondly, it introduced a new term into our lexicon - agroforestry - the ti:rm to cove, the practice associated with the problem of that interface. At least my search of literature h6s not found the term prior to its

12

use in Bene's report; in fact, the word does not appear in the title of any of the.54 papers cited by Bene.

The practice of mixing trees and agriculture is very old. Many writers have described systems involving trees and agriculture. The most widespread system is that which goes under the various names of swidden, shifting cultivation, bush fallow, slash and burn or the myriad of local terms. Thus McLoughiin (1970), while di scussing seven case studies of food production systems in Africa, mentions shifting cultivation and offers descriptions in four situations. Grigg (1974) proposes five criteria for a typology of agricultural systems. None of these include trees per se in the landscape and of the nine major types of farming, only shifting agriculture mentions trees in the description but does not indicate any tree products.

Duckam and Masefield (1971) mention shifting cultivation as practised in many parts of the world. They do not, however, treat the practice of mixed cropping of trees and crops and/or animals as a farming system. They do give a reasonably detailed description of shifting cultivation in a Ugandan village. quote these to suggest that trees were tolerated, or at least recognized, as an inclusion in the agricultural scheme but not

I

considered as a part of the management production package. Finally to place the practice o[ ;rowing trees and crops in an historical perspective, Andrewes (1971), writing on Greek society, indicates that Hesiod, the Greek poet of the seventh century B.C., in describing the agriculture of his time mentions the growing of cereals among olive trees.

To return to contemporary history. The recommendation of Bene and his group was accepted and implemented by IDRC along with the governments of Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The action taken by these sponsors set in motion the opportunities to initiate and to encourage research in the multitude of problems of agroforestry. But now let me share some thought: on improved land use.

The phrase -improved land use- will mean different things to different people - in all probability r;flecting thir priorities and/or problems. Our land resource, the base for food production, is relatively finite. The estimate of currently used land is approximately 1400 million hectares while the estimate of potentially usable land adds an additional 1000 to 2000 million hectares depending on the rigour of the definition (Steppler 1978). Meeting the food needs of an increasing world population will mean not only securing and

hopefully increasing the productivity of the currently used land but also bringing into arable agriculture portions of the potential areas.

Either situation carries the same implication with respect to improved land use with essentially the same considerations, although the priorities may vary. I suggest that there are three primary considerations:

the land-use system should meet the needs of the user of the land - the farmer - and the policies of the government;

the land-use system should be non-degrading of the resource: it shoud be sustainable and preserve the resource base for future generations;

the lanid-use system should be appropriate for the particular milieu and ideally be capable of enhanced productivity while still meeting the goal of sustainability.

It seems to me that there is one inescapable consequence of these three primary considerations, namely, the need for an objectively prepared land-use plan - a plan which recognizes the current technology

13

appropriate to a particular iileiu-cum-production goal. The plan should be re-assessed as new technologies become available and/or as new national goals are set. In the broadest sense the classification should identify either arriculture or forestry or agroTorestry as the appropriate land use. ICRAF, in developing its Diagnosis and Design methodology, had this as one of its objectives as well as being an honest broker in its land-use recommendations.

As with the phrase "improved land use", the word "sustainable" will have its special meaning depending largely on the reader's and user's priorities. One of the classic experiments which demonstrates sustainable yield is that of continuous wheat on the Broadbalk field at Rothamsted in the UK. Although not designed to demonstrate sustainability, this experiment, which was initiated in 1843, demonstrated that yield fell approxii-ately 30 percent in the first 35 years and then remained more or less steady in spite of change in the cultivars grown. A similar pattern of response can be expected in virtually any soil/climate situation and with any crop if you remove biomass from the system. Steppler (1978) ectimated that 2.5 million tonnes of N2, 1.2 million tonnes of P2 0 and 8 million tonnes of K2 were moving in the internati'-nal trade of three cereals ­

14

wheat, corn and rice - in 1973. Non-replacement of these nutrients by producing countries can threaten the sustainability of their production. The nutrient basis of production is essentially under man's control ­assuming that he is prepared to pay the costs.

Sustainability can also be threatened by loss of the physical base of the land resource. Thus any form of land erosion will inevitably result in a loss of productivity either due to a reduction in area, for example severe gulleyerosion, or loss of surface soil. (There is, of course, an associated loss of nutrient, particularly in surface erosion.) In either case one is faced with a very difficult task to stop the erosion and a long-term process to reverse it.

Thus sustainability related to the nutrient base can be realized by the input of the appropriate nutrients, and the level at which the production is to be sustained can be adjusted by altering the rate of input. On the other hand, when the physical base is threatened the problem is much more difficult to control and virtually impossible to raise above the original base. An agroforestry system appropriately selected and managed can have a significant impact on the latter - the physical problems of sustainability and with appropriate tree species may have ameliorating

effects on the former, the nutrient problems. One should, however, also caution that there will be costs associated with these benefits and many trade-offs to be carefully assessed (see Sa,chez in Agroforestry: A Decade of Developmetit).

The Diagnosis and Design methodology developed by ICRAF makes an assessment of the user needs and of his perception of problems. There is a recognition of the socio-econonic impact which agroforestry could have; there is, however,relatively little rigorous information which defines, or quantifies that impact. Conventional wisdom would suggest that agroforestry systems are likely to be labour intensive, the more complex and/or timely the management practice, the more demanding it maybe of labour. Thus we must know whether there are increased returns visible or invisible to that increased labour input. What is the point of diminishing returns as measured objectively by research and as seen by the user? Does the new agroforestry system meet the user's social needs to his satisfaction - will he consider it an improved land use?

Let me turn now to a brief examination of some issues which must be addressed if ICRAF - or any other institution - is to play a role in improving land use. There are in my judgementfour essential stages to any such action. The

time spent on each will vary with the situation under consideration but none can be ignored.Also all institutions need not be involved at all stages and, indeed, some institutions would be inappropriate for some stages.

The four stages, which I have presented in a slightly different form in the Cycle of Technology Development (see Steppler in Agroforestry: A Decade of Development), are:

Stage I Know the problem and be able to articulate it clearly and rigorously. This is essentially also a part of the Diagnosis and Design methodology of ICRAF. This is also obviously the startlng point for the whole process of technology generation. One must consider all aspects of the situation from the biological and the physical to the policy and the social-cultural. One must further be able and certain to distinguish between the symptoms and the problem - the disease; obviously with land-use improvement this will require much skill and perception.

Stage II Identify the appropriate components, elements, factors, etc., which require attention in order to gain that desired improvement in land use. We are dealing

15

with systems which in themselves are complex both in terms of the desirable components and in terms of the impact or output required from the system in order to qualify as an improved land-use technology. We need not only to be able clearly to sat down the desirable characteristics of components but also to have established the criteria and method of measurement of the desired impact. Not the least among these problems is to sort out the differences among the plethora of candidate multipurpose trees, the management practices for those trees and their agricultural partners in the system. While among the many impact measurements, that of :ustainability presents in my judgement one of the more complex issues embracing physical, biological, socio-cultural and economic benefit-cost relationships.

Stage III rhis is the stage at which the research is undertaken to modify the components, to develop the new or modified systems and to determine that it delivers the products ­impacts which are necessary to generate that improved land use.

Stage IV At this final stage there are two critical

activizies - one clearly in the research domain, the other open to question as a research- validated activity. The first activity is to validate the new technology at the ultimate user level by testing on-farm with user management and evaluation. The other more questionable research activity is to transfer the farm-level proven technology to its user domain - the extension function.

Reflections on these four stages will quickly underline the assive research agenda which faces all who are concerned with and recognize thie benefits to be gained from successful agroforestry technology. ICRAF has made many significant contributions through its Working Paper Series to questions of desion of experiments and impact measurement; much of this *as under the leadership of Dr Huxley, Director of the Research Development Division. The Collaborative Programmes Division under the direction of Dr Torres has initiated the expansion of ICRAF activity to the national level by applying the concepts of co-operative research within an ecological zone. However,all this notwithstanding, it seems clear to me that the tasks are more than can be undertaken by one institution. What is required are the co-ordinated efforts of many co-operating institutions operating at all levels - whether national, regional or international - with the

16

strong support of our national governments and donor community. I believe that in the current context ICRAF is the institution to undertake much of the co-ordination, the co-operation that has already begun among IITA, ICRISAT, ILCA and ICRAF at the international level and between SACCAR and ICRAF at one regional zonal level. No doubt networks will play a vital role in these activities developed as the need arises and the capacities to benefit are in place.

Many will question the placing of extension in a typology of technology generation. I contend that research and extension must be intimatelylinked with a two-way flow of information. Extension or technology transfer in agroforestry presents a special problem. At present there is to the best of my knowledge no institution with a program to train/educate extension specialists for agroforestry - with the possible exception of CATIE in Costa Rica. You can appreciate that, given the almost infinite range of problems and solutions open to the user, combined with the highly location-specific nature of an appropriate solution. The need to consider and provide for the training is real and urgent; may I commend to you the chapter by Hoskins in the anniversary commemorative book, Agroforestry: A Decade of Development.

I have not discussed issues such as policy,land tenure, marketing and the gender/age problems. These van each have an impact on the design and certainly on the interpretation of improved land use. May I, however, make one additional comment on the four stages which i have presented. I stated earlier that all agencies need not be engaged in activities at all stages. It should also be apparent tOat the process is iterative and not a straightline. That is, Stage IV feeds back to Stage I and potential refinement and/or identificationof flaws in a proposed intervention. Thus Stages I and IV are linked and I contend that every rationai agency which is interested in pursuirg agroforestry improvement must developthe capacity and capability to function at these combined stages, i.e, to test at farmer level and to clearly define the problem. StagesI! and III can be carried out at regional or international institutions provided they have the rigorous inputs from Stages I and IV to direct their activities. Large, well-endowed national systems can, of course, operate at all four stages if they so choose. It should also be apparent that the four stages are not discrete but a continuum with a rather large range of activity in stage III.

Finally let me raise one other issue which I have briefly mentioned - institutionalization of agroforestry. At present we have no

17

national agencies for agroforestry. We do have several countri-es, working with the Collaborative Programmes Division, with national agroforestry committees and several in which some member or members of an existing department are charged with responsibility for agroforestry. Sooner or later, independent agroforestry departments will be promulgated at the national level; agroforestry will then have a home and an identity separate from

LIIERATURE CITED

agriculture and forestry: it will have come into its own. The proposal to establish an Indian National Research Centre on Agroforestry during the period 1985-1990 is the first step in this direction.

Donor agencies can facilitate and legitimize the process by establishing agroforestry divisions parallel to but independent from agriculture and forestry.

Andrewes, A. 1971. Greek Society. Pelican Books, London.

Bene, J.G., H.W. Beall and A. Cot6. 1977. Trees, Food and People. Land Management in the Tropics. Inter. Develop. Res. Centre. Ottawa. IDRC -084e.

Duckam, A.N. and G.B Masefield. 1971. Farming Systems of the World. Chatto and Windus, London.

McLoughlin, P.F.M. 1970. African Food Production Systems - Cases and Theory.

Sanger, Clyde. 1977. Trees for People. Inter. Develop. Res. Centre. Ottawa' IDRC-094e.

Steppler, H.A. 1978. Natural resources: unresolved environmental problems. In: Distortions of Agricultural Incentives. T.W. Schultz (ed). Indiana University Press, 1978.

18

AGROFORESTRY IN ASIA: THE PROMISE OF AGROFORESTRY FOR ECOLOGICAL AND NUTRITION SECURITY

M S Swaminathan Director-General, International Rice Research Institute

Manila, Philippines

Dr Swaminathan is President of the International Union for theConservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). He was formerly- ."Director-Generai of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR),

Secretary to the Government of India (Ministry of Agriculture), and amember of the Planning Commission of the Government of India. A pastchairman of ICRAF's Board of Trustees, Dr Swaminathan was recentlyawarded the first World Food Prize (1987). In addition, he hasreceived numerous national and international awards and honours, amongthem the Albert Einstein World Science Award by the World Cultural Council (1986).

From the dawn of civilization, sustainable food have repeatedly stressed the need for enlargingsecurity has been a major human goal. FAO this concept to cover all aspects of balanceddefines food security as -physical and economic nutrition as well as clean drinking water soaccess to food for all people at all times-. I that all human beings have an opportunity for

The author is deeply indebted to Dr P K Aggarwal of the MultipleCropping Department of IRRI for assistance in compiling materials for this paper.

19

the full expression of their innate genetic potential for physical and mental development (Swaminathan 1986). Also, I have pointed out that enduring food and nutrition security can be 'uilt only on the foundation of ecological security, i.e., the security of the basic life support systems of land, water, flora, fauna and the atmosphere (Sw.minathan 1931). It is in this context that I wish to assess the role of agroforestry systems in helping us to achieve sustainable nutritional and ecological security.

Thanks to new technologies that emphasize the cultivation of crop genetic strains that respond to irrigation and good soil fertility management, many developing countries in Asia and Latin America have made good progress in food production since the mid-1960s. Many traditionally food-deficit or food-importing countries have become self-sufficient and even food-surplus countries. What is even more significant is that increases in food production have come largely from increases in productivity rather than increases in area. Because many developing countries, particularly those of South and Southeast Asia, are population-rich but land-poor, this is an important gain. Today, world grain stocks have increased to more than 450 million MT.

Despite such a satisfactory global situation,

scientists and planners are worried. For them, increasing the pace of food production to keep pace with unabated population growth in the developing countries is still an unfinished task. Although most countries of the world are in the process of demographic transition, the progress toward the final stage of this transition is lagging behind dangerously in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (Brown and Jacobso.i 1986). It is predicted that between 1980 and 2000, world population will increase by 1.7 billion. Ninety percent of this growth will occur in the developing countries. This tremendous increase will require at least 50-60% greater agricultural cdtput than in 1980. What then should be the Lppropriate strategy to increase food production?

Now it is sufficiently clear that any increase in food production has to come primarily by raising the productivity of currently tilled soils rather than bringing new land resources into farming. In fact, a large portion of currently tilled marginal areas will have to be phased out of agriculture for economic and ecological reasons. Land is a shrinking resource for agriculture. Because some lands are taken out of production all the time and diverted to uses such as roads, housing, and industry, health care of the soil is a priority task.

20

The carrying capacity of land in many developing countries is already overstretched, According to a recent FAO study, 54 of 117 developing countries did not have sufficient land resources to meet the food needs of their 1975 populations at low levels of input use (Higgins et al. 1983). These critical countries, covering an area of 2.2 billion ha, in 1975 had 278 million people in excess of the population-supporting capacity of the land. By 2000 at the same level of inputs, the number of

critical countries will increase to 64 and the population in excess of the land's potential carrying capacity may be over 500 million.

Even if input use is raised to the intermediate level, which may not be easy considering the external indebtedness of many developing countries, 36 countries will still be critical with 141 million people above the carrying ccpacity of the land.

Modern agricultural production technology has

raised the hope that hunger can be eliminated and the carrying capacity of the land increased

through better use of cubic volumes of soil, water, and air. Nevertheless, the ecological sustainability and economic viability of new technologies is increasingly at stake. The

rising populations of humans and animals, with their ever-expanding food, fodder, and feed needs, exerts great pressure cn the stabilizing elements of agro-ecosystems. As productive

land becomes scarce, marginal farmers have been pushed into fragile crop lands and forest areas unsuitable for modern agriculture. If the present trend of population growth persists, the forest and pasture lands will be further reduced. Figure 1 projects these relat.ionships for the Himalayas, a very delicate agro-ecosystem (Shah 1982).

Cattle unit,. Forest stock,ns ()mlonterlomot c -m

H)(milion

Humr" copulotion, Grss stuck, dry

3 20 i mC in 75

H e

36 -2 1 45

35 - a

4 .. ..... I534-

. 3.3 -0 1 0 o

1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 2041 Year

Figure 1 . Projected changes in population, cattle units, forest and grass stocks in Himalayas. Source: Shah (1981).

21

Unscientific land-use practices on such marginal soils, lead to many problems, notablysoil erosion. Higgins et al. (1983) estimated that if soil erosion continued at its 1983 rate, loss in rainfed cropland in the developing world would range from 9.7% to 35.6%, leading to an overall 28.9% decrease in crop production (Table 1).

A major cause of soil erosion is deforestation. Table 2 indicates the huge gap

Table 1.

between deforestation and tree plantation in the tropics where the problem is most acute. The World Resources institute has estimated that 160 million ha of upland watershed in the Himalayan and Andean range, and the Central American, Ethiopian and Chinese highlands have been seriously degraded due to human interference (WRI 1985). Cherapunjee, once the wettest area in the world and covered by densetropical forest, is now practically devoid of vegetation.

Effects of unchecked soil erosion on productivity

Africa Southwest Southeast South Central Global Asia Asia America America av (%)

Decrease in area ofrainfed cropland (%) 16.5 20.0 35.6 9.7 29.7 17.7

Decrease in rainfed crop productivity (%) 29.4 35.1 38.6 22.6 44.5 28.9

Source: Higgins et al. (1983)

22

Table 2. Annual deforestation and plantation projections for the tropics (1981-1985)

Region Annual rates of deforestation (ha

Tree formations x 10 ) Annual

rates of Plantation: deforestation

p'iantation ratio

Closed Open All

Tropical America (23 countries) 4,339 1,272 5,611 535 1:10.5

Tropical Africa (37 countries) 1,331 2,345 3,676 126 1:29

Iropical Asia (16 countries) 1,826 190 2,016 438 1:4.5

Total (76 countries) 7,496 3,807 11,303 1,099 1:10

Source: FAO (1982)

23

Overcutting for fuelwood and overgrazing in arid and semi-arid areas, combined with non-sustainable resource use patterns triggered by commercial greed or careless technology, have accelerated desertification. Such activizies directly affect agriculture.Extensive deforestation results in raised river beds, which reduce their water carrying caoacity, and consequently their irrigation potential. In India, for example, the National Commission on Floods has projected that an irrigation potential of almost 60,000 hectares may be lost every year because of siltation,

Shifting cultivation, long oractised all over the tropical highlands, has also contributed to deforestation. In the beginning of this century, shifting cultivation cycled in 30-40 years, but now it cycles in as few as 3.5 yearsdue to increased population pressure. An important offshoot is the reduced availability of fuelwood - a major source of energy in the rural areas of developing countries. If the gap between harvesting and tree planting remains as it is today, fuelwood shortage maybecome an even more sericus problem than food availability. A Study Group of the Planning Commission of the Government of India estimated in i982 that to meet fuelwood demand in 2000 AD, at least 3 million ha needs to be planted every year with fast-growing fuelwood trees (Swaminathan 1982). The increasing distance

between villages and forests has increased the time needed for fuelwood collection, thus depriving farm women and children of time which could have been utilized in other productive activities.

Although evidence is still inconclusive, extensive cutting of tree cover may contribute to the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The accompanying increase in global temperiture could directly affect agricultural production. That the global mean surface temperature actually increased during the !ast 100 years has recently teen proved bycomprehensive estimates of temperature based on calibrated ocean data and land measurements (Jones et al. 1986). A series of papers contained in the publication -State of the World - 1987-, published by the Worldwatch Institute, provides a grim picture of the cnerging global ecological scenario. Climatic changes could carry a global price tag of $200 billion for irrigation adjustments alone in the coming decades (Brown 1987).

It is obvious that the maintenance of tree cover is of utmost importance for ecological and economic sustainability of food production systems. Agroforestry involving the integratedcultivation of woody perennials, crops and animals proviaes one answer to our quandary. A typical agroforestry system allows symbiotic

24

economic and ecological interactions between the woody and non-woody components to increase, sustain, and diversify the total land output.The various agro-ecological systems that fall under agroforestry are: (a) shifting cultivation; (b) taungya afforestation; (c) home gardens; (d) silvi-pastoral; (e) silvi-agricultural; (f) alley cropping; and, (g) windbreaks and live fences (ICRAF 1983).

Farming sytems that incorporate perennial trees and shrubs have the advantage of producing fuelwood, fruits, fodder, and other products along with annual crops. In addition, theydecrease the farmer's exposure to seasonal environmental variations and, over the long term, maintain and improve soil health.

The following sections give a brief account on agroforestry systems, some recent successes, and the potential of these systems to increase food and environmental security.

TRADITIONAL SYSTEMS OF AGROFORESTRY

Different patterns of agroforestry were common in the early days. For many upland farmers, agroforestry was a way of life. Shifting

cultivation. for example, is believed to have originated in the neolithic period around 7000 BC (Sharma 1976). In this system, still common in many hilly areas of tropical Asia, Africa and Latin America, trees and agricultu'ral crops are arranged sequentially in time and space. its sustainability in the past was due to low population pressure and availability of large tracts of undisturbed forests. Today, shifting cultivation promotes soil erosion and land degradation. Inasmuch as we have alternative methods of soil fertility restoration, shiftingcultivation is no longer necessary.

Homegarden, or homestead, is another common agroforestry system. in this system, tall trees are intercropped with medium shrubs and short annual crops to produce a variety of foods and green manure besides reducing soil erosion. Intercropping in coconut and palm plantations is also common. Farmers generallyplant smaller trees such as coffee, cocoa, pineapple, and banana underneath the palms.

To arrest land degradation due to shiftingcultivation, a fairly successful system called "Taungya- was developed in the mid-1800 in Burma. In this systci, the government gave land to shifting cultivators and allowed them to raise trees and agricultural crops together. When the tree canopy closed and precluded further agricultural cropping,

25

farmers were shifted to another site. Meanwhile, th.e abandoned site developed into a full-fledged forest. Taungya was later adopted by many countries of Asia, Africa, and Central America.

RECENT TRENDS IN AGROFORESTRY

With the growing realization that agroforestry is a practical, low-cost alternative for food production as well as environmental protection, forest departments of many countries are integrating agroforestry programs with conventional silviculture. Forest research institutes and agricultural research centres are increasingly developing programs for agroforestry research, training, and education. The UN Conference on Desertification held in Nairobi in 1977 stressed the significance of agroforestry systems for meeting the food, fuel, fodder, and fertilizer needs of rural communities without causing ecological harm. The establishment of ICRAF in 1977 was a significant milestone in the history of agroforestry research. ICRAF for the first time provided a global professional organization for stimulating and supporting scientific and developmental interest in silvi-pastoral, silvi-horticultural, silvi-agricultural and other sytems of land management.

Agri-silvi-pastoral systems

Among the recent developments, the most important has been the realization of the importance of multipurpose, woody, leguminous

trees and shrubs in low-input farming systems. These legumes, such as various species of Leucaena, Sesbania, Gliricidia, Acacia, and Prosopis, are capable of providing the food, fodder, fertilizer, and fuel needs of rural populations. The trees also diversify income, dominate over weeds, reduce soil erosion, and improve soil structure and fertility. Many of these species are widely adapted. For example, Sesbania can tolerate a wide range of soil environments - saline, alkaline, and waterlogged.

Many agri-silvi-pastoral systems have been proposed in recent years. Alley cropping is one of the most important syste-; proposed. In this system, food crops are grown in alleys formed by hedgerows of trees or shrubs (see chapter by B.T. Kang and G.F. Wilson in Agroforestry: A Decade of Development). The hedgerows are cut back at the time of planting crops and are kept pruned to prevent shading the crops. Pruned foliage is allowed to decompose in the alleys and the nutrients released increase grain yields (Table 3). The foliage is also used to feed livestock. Simultaneously, the trees provide many other

26

Table 3. Main season grain yield of maize alley-cropped with Leucaena leucocephala as affected by application of leucaena prunings and nitrogen

N rate Leucaena Yield by year Ct/ha)(kg/ha) prunings

1979 1980 1981* 1982 1983

0 Removed - 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.30 Removed 2.1 1.9 1.2 2.1 0.980 Retained 3.5 3.3 1.9 2.9 3.2LSD 0.05 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8

4 Maize crop seriously affected by drought during early growth.

Source: Kang et al. (1984)

by-products such as fuelwood and stems for' Multi-level plantations and homegardensstaking viney crops.

Multi-level plantations and homegarden sytems,Alley cropping thus appears to be a low-cost common in smaller landholdings and designed tosustainable agricultural technology and an micrease food production, are fairly analogousattractive alternative to the prevailing to a rainforest with a multilayered canopy.shifting cultivation and bush-fallow system. The system and its component crops vary with

27

the location. In the humid tropics, plantations of coconut, oil palm, and rubber have increased during the last few years due to greater demand for vegetable oils and rubber products. New opportunities.have become available with the development of high-yielding hybrids between tall and dwarf'coconuts, which have a potential similar to that of oil palm (Khera 1978). During the initial and later years, palms in the piantation do not make use of all the available sunlight, space and water. These plantations therefore offer opportunities for intercropping. Cocoa in Malaysia, cassava in India, banana in Jamaica, and pineapple in the Philippines are now commonly intercropped with coconut. A significant amount of cocoa in Sri Lanka is now grown under rubber. Another form of multi-level associations is typified by the homesteads of Indonesia and the Kandy gardens of Sri Lanka. The species used are selected on the basis of their economic value. Tree crops such as coconut, acacia, and mango form the upper stratum; medium-sized trees such as guavas, coffee, avocado, Sesbania, p6,2aya, and banana compose the middle stratum; and annuals such as pineapples, pigeonpea, chilli, onion, ginger, bean, and tomato occupy the lowest stratum. Generally, in villages away from the

market, all plant residues are recycled. In villages close to the market, often the emphasis is on raising cash crops. In several

villages of Java, the houses are completely hidden by homesteads. The soil erosion in this system is. minimal as evidenced by the sharp contrast between heavily eroded land outside the village and well-preserved soils in the village homesteads in the Solo river basin of Central Java (Soemarwoto and Soemarwoto 1984).

Farm forestry

In several countries, some very successful farm forestry projects have begun to increase the rate of reforestation and to augment the supply of timber, fodder, fruits, and fuelwood. In the Gujarat State of India, the Forestry Department started a project in the early 1970s. The system was gradually accepted by farmers because it was less labor intensive and labor requirements were spread over the year. Tree farming with eucalyptus has now become so popular that irrigated, fertilized fields are also being used for this purpose (CSE 1985). Today, at least 107/ of Gujarat's farming families are involved in farm forestry. Similar success has been achieved in Haiti, Kenya, Senegal, and Nepal (WRI 1985). Such monocultures on farmland may not, however, always represent a major ecological advantage.Trees such as eucalyp doyV°u- dc not provide fodder

or mulch and may consume large quantities of water. There is also the risk that such programs may increase rural unemployment.

28

Hence, proposals for monoculture with tree species have to be carefully examined for their potential impact on soil, water and employment,

In the Philippines, an industry-related agroforestry system has become popular. In the project launched by.the Paper Industries Corporation of Philippines (PICOP) in 1967, 20/o of the land is used to raise agricultural cropsand 80% for tree farming with Albizzia falcataria, a fast-growing tree for paper pulpin an eight-year rotation (Veracion 1983).The scheme provides farmers with a continuous source of food and income. PICOP guarantees the purchase of wood, provides help in acquiring land, assists in obtaining loans andAlbizzia seedlings, and furnishes technical help.

The scheme has been able to meet all its objectives - to meet pulpwood requirement, to curb deforestation, and to increase the small farmer's income.

Agroforestry in arid and semi-arid areas

In arid and semi-arid environments, agroforestry systems help to provide greaterinsurance against weather abnormalities. Manymultipurpose trees such as Prosopis cineraria, Zizyphus rotundifolia, Casuarina, Tecomela

undulata, Acacia tortilis, Dalbergia sissoo, and Sesbania thrive in arid areas. Cropsaccompanying these trees may not show any significant reduction in grain yield (DARE1986). Perennial shrubs such as Sesbania and Cajanus cajan also show promise to producefood, fodder, and fuelwood. Alley cropping can be successfully practised in many areas.

Windbreaks and live fences are other options available in agroforestry for dry areas. Leucaena leucocephala, when planted as a windbreak, increased the grain yield of agricultural crops and moisture availability in soil by'reducing surface run-off and evapration. In Niger, millet yields increasedby 23% , neem trees were planted as windbreaks. Vast tracts of sand dunes have been stabilized in Senegal by planting trees inand around the farms. In Maroua, Cameroon, Cassia siamea trees were planted across lowland plains as a shelterbelt to reduce soil erosion and increase agricultural output. Although the shelterbelt reduced soil erosion, yields of sorghum and cotton, the principal croos in theregion, decreased, particularly in a 30m-wi de strip on either side of the tree rows. This was not due to competition between the trees and crops but to the combined effect of reduced air turbulpnce and undisturbed heating of the ground raising the temperature. Therefore care needs to be taken to leave sufficient gaps in

29

the tree fences to allow optimal air movement,

Agroforestry in problem soils and wastelands

Large areas in the tropics are affected by salinity, alkalinity, acid sulphate, and waterlogging. Unscientific land-use practices have led to a further increase in the area affected by toxicities and deficiencies. Such degraded lands can often b2 reclaimed by agroforestry while providing the poor farmers with some income. Many species of trees can grow well in these problem areas where most agricultural crops cannot. The various species of Sesbania, for example, can grow successfully in saline, alkaline, and even waterlogged soils. in the coastal areas of Gujarat, India, extensive areas have been planted to Prosopis juliflora. In West Bengal, India, the government has leased out marginal degraded forest wastelands to landless farmers. These farmers are provided sufficient incentives and inputs to practise agroforestry, leading to increased tree plantations in the area. Large tracts of eroded wastelands in the Loess Plateau of China have been reclaimed by planting trees and using legumes as groundcover. Cheaper techniques such as pianting tree seedlings in pits to which gypsum has been added can also be very useful in expanding agroforestry. There is a need for formulating land-use policies based on sound

principles of ecology and economics in such areas. The Indian example, where the government has formed a National Land-Use and Wasteland Development Council headed by the Prime Minister, can be followed in countries with similar problems.

POTENTIAL: THE AFRICAN OPPORTUNITY

We are currently witnessing a good deal of optimism about what agroforestry can accomplish for food production and environmental protection. Generally, most countries in Asia and Latin America are able to meet their food requirements. In contrast, sub-Saharan African nations face complex technological problems arising from the fragility of soils, scarcity of water, diversity of crops and pests, and climate variability. More than 40%3 of Africa's people live in countries where grain yields are lower than they were a generation ago. The loss of tree cover in closed forests and in savannas is extensive. In many countries wood collection for fuel and other uses exceeds the sustainable yield of the remaining accessible. forests. A recent World Bank study of seven West African countries covering five rainfall zones showed that in ecozones having the lowest rainfall, agricultural and fuelwood demands equal or exceed sustainable yields (World Bank 1985). Another finding was that in all

30

countries and in aul zones, the sustainable carrying capacity of the forests was much less than that of croplands and grazing lands (Table4) Africa today is witnessing gradual shifts in its ecological zones. The recent drought and consequent famine in Ethiopia and other countries made Africa the focus of worldattention and concern. in tourist literature, Ethiopia is often described as a country with13 months of sunshine. It is rather ironic that agriculture, which is essentially a solar energy harvesting enterprise, is so poor in these countries Restoring African tree cover is essential to the restoration of the hydrological cycle and to the recovery of agriculture (Brown and Wolf 1985). Widespreadintroduction and promotion of agroforestry can go a long way toward sustainable resource management and ecological and economic rehabilitation of Africa.

However, given the diversity of climates,farming systems, and economic conditions in various regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, one might wonder if changed land-use practices, such as those needed in agroforestry, will be an economically andecologically sustainable alternative in increasing food production and protecting the environment in all ecozones. The potential of agroforestry in the ecological rehabilitation of upland, deforested, and already eroded

watersheds is beyond doubt. it should also be a viable alternative to slash and burn and to bush and fallow systems of agriculture.However, greater acceptance of agroforestry in these areas would need efficient agri-silvi-pstoral systems capable of meeting

the subsistence farmer's requirement for food,fodder, fuel and some cash income.

Agroforestry can also play a greater role in reclaiming wastelands and wasted lands and in increasing food production in problem-soil areas. This should also be appropriate in maintaining long-term soil health of poor or average-quality lowland soils. Silvi-agricultural or agri-silvi-pastoral systems such as alley cropping can become verysuccessful. Windbreaks and silvi-pastoral systems can help in mitigatingdrought-associated risks in arid and semi-arid regions.

The crucial question, however, is whether land-use practices should be changed to atcommodate agroforestry in presentlygoed-quality, fertile, highly productive,

resource-rich farms. In this age of a highlydynamic market and consequent changes in farming systems, introduction of trees into these areas may lead to inflexibility and manymangement problems. However, it will be desirable to encourage tree plantation on farm

31

Table 4. Measures of sustainability in seven African countries by ecological zones, 1980.*

Zone

Sahelo-Saharan

Sahelian

Sahelo-Sudanian

SUdanian

Sahelo-Guinean

Total

w Burkina Faso, Chad,

Food

Agriculturally sustainable population

Actual Food rural disparity population

Fueiwood

Fuelwood sustainable population

Actual Fuel total dis­

parity

----------------------------------------- million-----------------------­

1.0 1.8 -0.8 0.1 1.8 -1.7

3.9 3.9 0.0 0.3 4.0 37

8.7 11.1 -2.4 6.0 13.1 -7.1

8.5 6.6 2.3 7.4 8.1 -0.7

13.8 4.6 10.2 7.1 4.0 3.1

36.3 27.0 9.3 ?0.9 31.0 -10.1

Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal. The five ecological zones are

delineated by amounts of rainfall.

Source: World Bank (1985)

32

boundaries, canal bunds, and poor patches of the farmland.

In view of the enormous potential of agroforestry for promoting sustainable production, there is a need to identify and remove the technological and socio-economic constraints limiting the spread of agroforestry. Some of the important challenges that require immediate attention are discussed below.

CHALLENGES

Biological constraints

To sustain agroforestry, it is important to strengthen our research efforts. Such low-cost and ecologically sound technologies should not receive low inputs of scientific and financial resources. There is an immediate need to extensively survey existing agroforestry systems to determine the interaction between component species, to classify the trees used, and then to refine the systems in view of soil, climate, and socio-economic limitations. Clearly, an interdisciplinary approach is warranted. Earlier agroforestry systems were predominantly based on economic principles, Future systems, however, will have to overcome physiological (canopy structure), biological

(pests and Qiseases), and ecological (sustainability and environment protection) constraints besides being economically sound. Detailed studies on the competition and complementarity between trees and understory agricultural crops for solar radiation, space, and soil factors are needed. The epormous experience gained in intercropping annual crops can be very useful.

The tallest component of agroforestry systems, the tree, should have foliage tolerant of strong light and high evaporative demand; the shorter components should have foliage adapted to shade and relatively high humidity. It is very important to consider microclimatic changes that agricultural crops have to face under the trees. The entire process of selection and breeding of crops and crop varieties should take this into consideration. Similarly, agroforestry systems should avoid below ground competition for water and nutrients by ensuring that component species have non-overlapping root systems.

The incorporation of deciduous trees such as Dalbergia sissoo into agroforestry systems can often be very uceful. The natural abscission of leaves during autumn enriches the soil while solar radiation availability under the tree increases. Growing short-duration, high-yielding crops during this period of

33

abundant sunshine and nutrients will be very productive. Alternatively, we should consider the use of growth regulators to induce partial defoliation of the trees when the radiation requirement of understory agricultural crop is at ics peak. This may also help reduce the labor required for pruning in systems such as alley cropping. However, studies on the feasibility and practicality of such methods are needed.

Diversity in agroforestry systems is very important for their ecological sustainability. Extensive plantations with a single strain of Leucaena leucocephala in the Philippines and elsewhere has led to severe psyllid pest epidemics, damaging more than 50o of the trees (Lapis 1986). Brewbaker (1985) drew attention to the genetic vulnerability to pest attack of single variety plantations of Leucaena leucocephala. Similarly, overdependence on a single genotype of the stem-nodulating Sesbania rustrata may lead to pest ard disease outbreaks. Therefore, it is necessary to identify and describe more N-fixing tree species as well as genotypes of S. rostrata. Many such trees have recently been catalogued by NAS (1979) and ICRAF (1986). Eucalyptus plantations have significantly increased in recent times due to their importance in pulp and paper manufacture. In many areas these can be replaced by fast-growing kenaf Hibiscus

cannabinus, another excellent source of raw material for pulp and paper manufacture.

Lack of suitable germplasn can delay future research and development efforts in agroforestry. National, regional, and global germpiasm banks for preserving seeds of tree species are needed. Ecological sustainability of agricultural practices can be promoted only by spreading awareness that conservation is development.

Pest and disease control through agroforestry has been rarely studied. Today, integrated pest management involving non-overlapping pest crops and conservation of natural enemies is very important. Trees can, for example, provide a physical barrier to flying insects. in Samoa, there is a conspicuous reduction in cocoa leaf damage caused by the root beetle Andoretus versutus when it is intercropped with trees (Newton and Thomas 1983). The role that multipurpose tree species such as neem Azadarichta indica, known to be an effective pest control agent, can play in agroforestry should be determined.

There is also a need to resolve silvicultural problems. It is important to raise the ecological adaptation of tree crops. A major problem with many tree species is the difficulty of establishing them and their slow

34

initial growth. Some species need scarification of seeds for germination. We must examine alternative methods of establishment and propagation. Foresters have considerably improved the techniques of vegetative propagation for hardwood trees. These can be applied to N fixing trees as well. Success in vegetative propagation and clonal selection will allow production of a large continuous supply of paantation stock,

The stem- and root-nodulating shrubby legume Sesbania rostrata (Dreyfus and Dommergues 1980)has the capacity to grow and fix N in waterlogged soils. The possibility of transferring this stem-nodulating habit to other legume species by genetic engineeringshould be explored to increase theiradaptability,

Many tree crops, such as eucalyptus, could be unsuitable for agroforestry simply because their foliage and roots produce allelopathic toxins. Physiological and biochemical studies to control the production of these toxins should be initiated.

Lastly, methods should be developed to reduce the time taken to develop agroforestry systems. Research in agroforestry is long-termand does not promise major returns in the short-run. Mistakes in agroforestry can

therefore be costlier than the mistakes made in agriculture.

Socio-economic constraints

The adoption of the agroforestry system of land use requires fundamental changes in approaches to farming. For a subsistence farmer, this may involve, besides a change in farming practices, a change in diet or a change in marketing and labor input requirements. Recent experiencewith green-revolution technology has demonstrated the roles human ecology and sociology play in the acceptance and spread of technologies. We need to study the various socio-econo ic conseraitts and design appropriate strategies to convince the farmerthat the short- and long-term payoff inadopting agroforestry will be considerable.

To promote agroforestry as a sustainable method of increased food production and environmental protection, te should develop and introduce the three, mutually supportive and harmonious, packages:

(1) economically viable, ecologicallysound, and socially compatible technology;

(2) services and inputs to help farmers, and

35

(3) public policies that can stimulate and sustain the farmer's interest in agroforestry.

Success in cereal production in Asia and Latin America during the last two dec ades was due to the availability of mutually reinforcing agricultural packages (Swaminathan 1986). The three major components of a symphonic agricultural system are briefly described below.

Package of technology- The proposed technology should aim to achieve the highest output possible per unit of land, water, time, and labor while disallowing any depreciation in the basic agricultural assets of land, water, flora, and fauna. The 'cafeteria approach in which farmers can choose based on their capabilities and requirements should be proposed. For the subsistence farmer, the proposed agroforestry technology should not only produce food, fodder, fertilizer, and fuelwood but some cash income. For the market-oriented farmer, the technology package should operate at still higher efficiency, at both the production and the postharvest level. A package of information should be built in to suggest the kinds of trees and agricultural crops, best combinations, manacement practices, costs and benefits, markets, a!d sources of financial and technical assisLance.

In Africa, 75% of the food grown and eaten is produced predominantly by women. The proposed technology should also take note of the sex-related roles in food production.

Package of services. Equality of opportunity to appropriate technology should be the foundation of all agricultural extension and development planning. Designing and developing packages of essential services so farmers can take advantage of the new agroforestry technology is extremely important. Both government and private agencies should be active in providing seeds, seedlings, fertilizers, and, very important, credit. Regional seed and seedling banks should be established to ensure timely availability of seeds and seedlings for farmers. Modern propagation methods can be used to produce quality stocks. The last service - credit - is particularly essential because the payoff in agroforestry starts several years after the introduction of the scheme. Governments need to evolve innovative policies for effective and timely input supply schemes.

Package of government policies.. No agricultural or agroforestry technology can remain productive and sustainable without government s,.pport. One major area that requires government action is land reform. Agroforestry is a long-term practice so it will

36

not be surprising if tenant farmers fail to adopt it. In an agroforestry project in the Philippines, it was noted that part-owners of land used their own area on the site for counter-hedges, indicating their acceptance of agroforestry but a reluctance to establish trees on land they did not own (Kent 1985).

The concept of land reform should be enlarged to include not only ownership but regulations to prevent abuse of land. In parts of Africa, livestock reform to enable controlled grazing is equally important. Unscientific land-use practices have led to degradation of large tracts. In each country, there is a pressing need to set up a National Task Force for Designing and Promoting Agroforestry Systems, which should design appropriate components of agroforestry for all ecozones. The technique of training should be learning by doing.

Mass media such as local language papers, radio, and television should be actively . involved. Software should be developed for agroforestry education and communication. Extension agencies should have skilled and motivated workers to successfully protect and promote the interest of individuals and society in agroforestry.

The evailable food grain surpluses in the world give us increasing opportunities to diversi-y

agroforestry systems based on long-term sustainability criteria. For example, to reclaim eroded, marginal soils, annual food crops should not be grown in the new agroforestry systems. Subsistence farming families in remote isolated areas, hard-pressed to earn their daily bread, can be persuaded to adopt ecologically sound land-use practicesonly if they are assured of the staple grain they need. Food security for the poor must first be ensured before the promotion of ecological security. Governments will have to build visible grain stocks in habitats characterized by fragile ecosystems. In countries where governments do not have their own stocks, special programmes such as Food for Scientific Land Use or Food for Agroforestry Development could be initiated.

In the case of better-off farmers, the provision of opportunities for producer-oriented and remunerative marketing becomes essential to stimulate and sustain their interest in agroforestry. Here, input-output pricing policies become crucial. Enough incentives such as support price for wood and other tree products should be provided.

37

CONCLUSION

Eternal vigilance is the Drire of stable agriculture. The greatly increased population and its ever-expanding needs for food and fuelwood in this century threaten agricultural stability. Political and commercial greed, th( genuine needs of the poor for fuel and fodder, inapE-opriate technologies, and the absence of a systems approach in the design and implementation of agricultural and industrial projects in ecologically fragile areas have al contributed to increased environmental deterioration. B.F. Skinner has rightly emphasized -

Every new source from which man has increasea his power on eatLh has oeer used to diminish the prospects of his successor. All his progress is being made at the expense of damage to the environment, which he cannot repair and cannot foresee.

It is time that we devote greater attention to economically and ecologically sustainable agricultural production systems where present ecogomic progress and prospects for survival will not be in conflict. Fortunately,agroforestry systems are characterized by this happy blend and 1l1p us to exploit in a z:ustainable manner cubic volumes of soil and

air and thereby give farmers the maximum return from the available soil, water, nutrient, and sunlight.

There is now an opportunity to design more efficient and ecologically sustainable agroforestry systems by putting the large food grain stocks of today to intelligent use. Agroforestry systems designed to overcome physiological, biological, ecological, and economic constraints can help to enhance production efficiency. We therefore need both greater support for agroforestry research and greater integration of agroforestry research into the mainstream of farming systems research. Stimulating and helping to sustain a symphonic agroforestry system based on appropriate blends of political will, professional skill, and peoples' action will be a major challenge for ICRAF in its second decade.

38

REFERENCES

Brewbaker J L .1985. The genetic vulnerability of single varietyplantations of Leucaena. Leucaena Research Reports. Nitrogen FixingTree Association. Hawaii. Vol. 6 p. 81-82.

Brown L R, Jacobson J L .1986. Our demographically divided world. World Watch Paper 74. December 1986. p. 54.

Brown L R, ed. .1987. State of the world. World Watch Institute, Washington, 286 p.

Brown L P, Wolf E C .1985. Reversing Africa's decline. World Watch Paper65. June 1985. p. 81.

Centre for Science and Environment .1985. The state of India's environment. The second citizen's report. New Delhi.

Dreyfus B, Dommergues Y R .1980. Non-inhibition de la fixation d'azote atmospherique chez une legumineuse a nodules caulinaires Sesbania rostrata. C.R. Acad. Sci (Paris) 291:767-770.

Food and Agriculture Organization .1982. Tropical Forest Resources FAO Forestry Paper No. 30. Rome 1982. p. 106.

Higgins G M, Kassam A H, Naiken L, Fischer G, Shah M M .1983. Potentialpopulation supporting capacities of lands in the developing world. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. p. 139.

India Ministry of Agriculture .1I986. Department of Agricultural Research and Education. New Delhi.

39

International Council for Research in Agroforestry .1983. An account of the activities of the International Council for Research in Agroforestry. Nairobi. p. 32.

International Council for Research in Agroforestry .1986. Multipurpose tree and shrub seed directory. Nairobi, Kenya. p. 265.

Jones P D, Wigley T M L, Wright P B .1986. Global temperature variations between 1861 and 1984. Nature 322:430-434.

Kang B T, Wilson G F, Lawson T L .1984. Alley cropping. A stable alternative to shifting cultivation. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. p. 22.

Kent T .1985. Development and extension of the agroforestry/hillside farming programme in Zamboanga, del Sur. Zamboanga del Sur Development Project, Republic of the Philippines. p. 48.

Khera M S .1978. Proceedings of International Conference on cocoa and

coconuts. Kuala Lumpur.

Lapis E G .1986. Psyllids invade the Philippines. Canopy Int. 12(2):I, 10.

National Academy of Sciences .1979. Tropical legumes: resources for the future. USA. p. 332.

Newton K, Thomas P .1983. Role of the NFTs in cocoa develcpment in Samoa. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports. 1:15-17.

Shah S L .1982. Ecological degradation and future of agriculture in the Himalayas. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 37(l):1-22.

40

Sharma T C .1976. The pre-historic background of shifting cultivation. Proceedings of seminar in shifting cultivation in the North East India. N.E. Indian Council for Social Science Research, India.

Soema,'woto 0, Soemarwoto I .1984. The Javanese rural ecosystem. Pages 327 in An introduction to human ecology research in agricultural systems in Southeast Asia 254-287. T. Rambo and Percy E. Sajise, eds. University of the Philippines at Los Banos, Philippines.

Swaminathan M S .1981. Building a national food security system. Indian Environmental Society, New Delhi. 138 p.

Swaminathan M S .1982. Report of the Fuelwood Study Committee. Planning Commission, Government of India, March 1982.

Swaminathan M S .1986. Sustainable nutrition security for Africa: Lessons from India. The Hunger Projept Papers, No. 5. October 1986. San Francisco, USA. 33 p.

Veracion A G .1983. Agroforestry: the paper industries corporation of the Philippines' experience. Pages 52-58 in Agroforestry in perspective. PCARRD, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines-.

World Bank .1985. Desertification in the Sahelian and Indian Zones of West Africa. Washington, D.C.

World Resources Institute .1985. Tropical forests: a call for action. I. p. 49.

41

THE PRESENT AND POTENTIAL ROLE OF AGROFORESTRY IN SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA

Armando Samper uirector-General, Sugar Cane Research Center of Colombo (Cemicana)

Cali, Colombia

Formerily Minister of Agriculture of Colombia, Bogota, Mr Samper Gnecco is a past dJirector-general of the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural S-iences (IICA), and a past president of the University of Bogota. He has received several national and international awards and lionours, among them the Inter-American Agricultural Medal of IICA.

I regretted deeply to learn in Nairobi that John Bene had died in 1986. I pay tribute to him as one of the leading founders of modern scientific agroforestry.

42

I was honored and pleased to receive the invitation of Dr Bjorn Lundgren, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of ICRAF, to participate in this conference on -The role of agroforestry in improved land use-, as part of the celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Council.

It is a great honor indeed to be included in this gathering of distinguished keynote speakers, agroforestry leaders and research scientists tho have come to Nairobi to testifythat agroforestry has come of age and it is here to stay.

I am particularly pleased that Dr M.S. Swaminathan, tne first World Food Prize laureate as the Architect of the -green revolution- of India, is with us. Like many persons around the world, I.have witnessed his life-long dedication to the cause of food, agricultural development, stability and peace. In several high-level meetings I was privileged to attend with him, such as those of the United Nations Advisory Committee on Science and Technology for Development, of which he was Chairman, Dr Swaminathan made outstanding contributions with his research and developmentfindings, penetrating thinking, high moral standards, human compassion for the underprivileged, and driving leadership. His election sets a very high standard for the

General Foods World Food Prize.

When I was President of the National Corporation of Forestry Research and Development of Colombia (CONIF), I served as a Regional Consultant for the International Development Resear(h Centre (IDRC) of Canada. As such, I participated with John Bene, Joe Hulse, Howard Steppler, Gilies Lessard and other IDRC directors and consultants in the studies and meetings that led to the establishment of ICRAF. It is gratifying indeed to confirm that ICRAF is a thriving organization and to be a guest at the inauguration of its new headquarters.

For quite a few years T have been interested in agroforestry through some of the institutions in which I have held directive positions, either as a staff member of as a board member, such as the Interamerican Insitute of Cooperation for Agriculture (IICA) in Costa Rica, the Regional Office of FAO for Latin America and the Caribb-an-in Chile, the international Centre of Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Colombia, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (TITA) in Nigeria, and in CONIF. However, I am not an expert in agroforestry. i beg your indulgence, therefore, if I speak just as an interested outsider. My contribution will be limited, therefore, to a summary of the present

43

situation of agroforestry in South and Central America, and to some personal viewpoints as to how the potentials and constraints to agroforestry relate to larger policy and development issues, which is what Dr Lundgren has asked me to do.

TREES, FOOD AND PEOPLE

There is nothing new under the sun-, says the proverb. We all know this is particularly true of agroforestry, which is a new name for a very old practice. Certainly in Latin America, the pre-colombian civilizations practised agroforestry, as t-: primitive civilizations of the humid tropics do today. In my country,Colombia, the multi-strata plantings of trees -- including fruit trezs, shrubs and food crops - can be seen along the lands of the river banks in the Amazon region and on the estuaries along the wet Pacific coast.

Yet, as the Director of ICRAF, Dr Bjorn Lundgren, has pointed out, it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that the word started to appear in publications. The final break-through of the concept, Dr Lundgren has said, came with the report of J.G. Bene, H.W. Beall and A. C6t6, -Trees, Food and People: Land Management in the Tropics-, published by IDRC in 1977.

The Bene report is, indeed, a remarkable study. As you know, in July 1975 the International Development Research Centre set up a project for the identification of tropicalresearch priorities to make better use of the tropical forest, then, as now, overexploited and underused. After studyinq the environmental significance of the tropicalforest, the tree production systems - including the rehabilitation of degraded forest lands ­the utilization of the forest resnur,:e, the constraints on resource development, and the research needs and priorities, John Bene and his colleagues came to an unexpected conclusion:

Research in the management and utilization of both natural and man--made forests as well as studies leading to the rehabilitation of degraded tropical lands can make contributions of major significance. Although intsnsified research in these problem areas is urgentlyneeded, they are, in our judgement, better served by on-going research than are the problems of increasing production from land where the combination of trees, agricultural crops, and/or animals will optimize results.

The eight pages dedicated to agroforestry in the 52-page report are a remarkable

44

condensation of the tenets of agroforestry, then and today. From them I have extracted 16 points which I am adding at the end because to me they constitute a fine compendium, still valid. Perhaps not everything which has been said about agroforestry has been included in the statement and deeper analyses have been made with the additional information available. However, when I re-read the Bene report I decided not to elaborate on these points, which express better than i can my own understanding of agroforestry as a new field of activity.

THE SITUATION IN SOUTH AMERICA

Latin America, as such, conprises South America (including Brazil), Central America and Panama, Mexico in North America, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti in the Caribbean. Although I am to speak particularly on the situation in South and Central America, some of my remarks will refer to Latin America in general.

Two institutions stand out as pioneers in Latin America in relation to agroforestry: the Tropical Agronomic Center for Research and Education (CATIE), in Turrialba, Costa Rica, and the National Corporation for Forestry Research and Development (CONIF), in Colombia.

When CONIF was established in 1974 by the forest industries and the Colombian Government as a non-profit corporation, agroforestry was included, from the beginning, amona the priority research and development programs. It has had the technical and financial support of the Government of the Netherlands for its agroforestry activities.

In 1975, when John Bene and the international Development Research Centre were carrying out the project for the identification of tropical forest research priorities, CONIF attracted their attention because of its pioneeringresearch activities in relation to the humidtropical forest and agroforestry. In 1977, when IDRC was charged with the responsibility of serving as the executing agency for the establishment of ICRAF, the Colombian Government offered facilities for the headquarters of the proposed new agency, in Cali, with the full support of President Lopez.

The agroforestry activities of CONIF are grouped according to the five main geographical regions of Colombia. In the wet humid tropicalPacific coast, where the natural forest is the dominant vegetation, the peasants cut the secondary growth without burning it, grow food crops such as maize, cassava, rice, sugar cane, and plantains, and let the land rest for two years or more. During the last five years,

45

CONIF has Deen designing and developing improved agroforestry systems involving food crops, fruit trees, and commercial timber trees such as Cedrela odorata.

In the hilly humid part of the Atlantic coast, the Uraba region, the natural forest has been cut to plant maize temporarily and establish pastures, causing severe erosion. CONIF has introduced alley cropping, with Leucaena and Gliricidia, and has recuperated successfully the pasture land invaded by imperata grass with local legume, Vitabosa (Mucuna deringiana).

The Andean region is the richest, most populated and most developed area. Coffee, the most important agricultural crop and the backbone of the economy, is grown under the shade of legume trees. Cassava and plantations are intercropped. The Colombian Coffee Federation is diversifying the shade trees by introducing valuable wood trees such as Cordia and Cedrela, as well as fruit trees.

The Oriental Plains of the Orinoco region and the tropical humid forest of the Amazon region cover half of the territory of Colombia. They are scarcely populated lands. Spontaneous colonization is threatening to destroy the large biological reserve cf the upper Amazon, by cutting the trees to establish pastures. CONIF and the Araracuara Regional Corporation

4E

are introducing agroforestry practices for better land use, such as planting wood trees in the pastures and as shade in the cocoa plantations.

As can be seen the problems and agroforestry practices of the tropical areas of Colombia are similar to those of the tropical regions in other countries.

CONIF has carried out preliminary economic analyses of some of the agroforestry systems, through an economics consultant, Dr. Irma Baquero.

A recent Technical Evaluation Mission to examine the work carried out by CONIF under the agreement with the Government of the Netherlands recommended orienting the research more to tne development of technical packages useful to growers rather thar carrying out basic studies.

In 1980, CONIF and 13 other Colombian institutions, including the National Institute of Natural Resources and the Environment (INDERENA) of the Ministry of Agriculture, the University of the State of Tolima, the Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia, and several regional development corporations, established the National Agroforestry Network, of which CONIF was designated coordinating

agency. CONIF and the participating agencieshave identified 15 factors affecting the development of agroforestry in Colombia and 11 priority research areas. It is beyond the scopeof this address to analyze the situation in just one ccuntry. However, there seems to be consensus that evaluation of the role of agroforestry research and development for better land use in the colonization and settlement of humid tropical areas is the mostpressing need.

Also in 1986, CONIF was chosen by FAD and 10 Latin American countries as the CoordinatingAgency of the Tropical Agroforestry Network for Latin America, promoted by the FAO Regional Office for Latin America. The establish:-Ient of the network vas preceded by a series ofmeetings held i 1984 and 1985. Costa Rica, Argentina, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua,Panama, Peru, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Chile have joined the network.

Although the network is still at the developing stage, there is already a better knowledge of the agroforestry practices carried out in these countries as well as in Bolivia, Brazil,Ecuador, Venezuela, and Honduras, which participated in the preparatory meetings; a better understanding of the potentials andconstraints of agroforestry; and a clear definition of the priorities for research and development.

A wvide variety of agroforestry practices are used in the various regions of the different countries. The practices most common in the majority of countries, however, are the planting of commercial trees in food cropfields, the planting of shade trees and soil imDrovement trees in commercial crops, the planting of live barriers and windbreaker trees, and grazing and forage production under tree plantations. As to the perspective for agroforestrydevelopment, the participants in the meetings of the Latin America Agroforestry Network have identified the main factors. Among them ­although not in order of priority - they listed the following:

(1) There is an ecological similarity in some regions which makes it possible to establish related agroforestry practices which facilitate exchange of

information and experiences. (2) For the success of the agroforestry

practices it is essential to incorporate the peasant from the beginning and to "iow his needs and customs.

(3) It is important to establish efficient marketing and processing facilities for the products.

47

(4) From a regional point of view, priority should be given to the mountain regions with a high population density, the tropical humid regions where colonization is advancing, and the arid and semi-arid regions.

(5) Development efforts should concentrate on projects of interest to the government of a given country because of demographic pressure, migration, or colonization, deterioration of the watersheds and of the soil, or destruction of the natural forests.

(6) Land tenure regulations clarifying property rights are necessary for the development of agroforestry practices.

(7) Promotion programs are important to incorporate agroforestry into the economic productive system of the private sector.

Among the limitations and needs, the participants in the meetings of the Latin America Agroforestry Network sponsored by FAQ and CONIF indicated:

-

-

the chronic lack of funds on the part of the research organizations; the need for lines of credit adequate

48

to the requirements of the growers; - the establishment of information

infrastructures; - closer links with donor agencies; - inventories of physical and human

facilities available for agroforestry in the different countries;

- the creation of agroforestry units in the research and development institutions.

The extent to which the creation of agroforestry units will improve the institutional situation should be further analyzed. Education and training are, of course, fundamental.

Better known here in ICRAF are the networking activities planned for the Amazon region, in collaboration with the Agro-ecological Research Network for the Amazon (REDINAA) of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, in cooperation with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA) and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); and the Pucallpa and Yurimaguas projects in Peru. The experience of ICRAF in the development of the Agroforestry Research Networks for Africa (AFRENA) along geographical regions, ecozones, and field projects should be useful for the development of a similar pattern in Latin America.

It is surprising how limited is the information about agroforestry in Latin America included in the abundant literature of agroforestry produced in the last ten years or so. For example, in the extensive bibliography of the very good analysis of "The use of agroforestry to improve the productivity of converted tropical land-, prepared in 1982 by Dr. Lundgren, Director of ICRAF, for the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress, I found only a few publications written by Latin American authors: Alvim, Ampuero, Arellano, Budowski, Galvao, ae las Salas, Sanchez, Tergas, and Torres.

However, there are several references about agroforestry in Latin America written by English-speaking authors and some of the international agencies.

Why is information about agroforestry research in Latin America so limited? I venture three possible explanations: first, the language and cultural barriers; secondly, the limited amount of research in agroforestry carried out by Latin American institutions; thirdly, the relative neglect by some of the international and bilateral agencies which have other political priority areas.

THE SITUATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA

Until 1960, the operational headquarters of the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences (IICA) were located in Turrialba, Costa Rica. There, since 1946, IICA had been operating the first Graduate School of Tropical Agriculture established in Latin America and a Department of Renewable Natural Resources, headed initially by Dr Holdrige, a forester well known in Latin America for this system of ecology based on life zones.

In 1960, the headquarters of IICA were transferred to San Jos6, the capital of Costa Rica, and the Turrialba Center became a separate research and graduate education center of IICA until i973. That year, it became the Tropical Agronomic Research and Education Center - CATIE, as it is known now - an autonomous Center established by IICA, the Government of Costa Rica and the other Central American countries, within the overall framework of IICA.

The first descriptions of agroforestry systems were made by the Turrialba Center in the early 1950s. In 1976, an Agroforestry Program was established within the Department of Renewable Natural Reso'Urces, headed until 1985 by Dr. Gerardo Budowski. Dr. Budowski, a Venezuelan forester, former graduate student of Dr.

49

Holdrige at Turrialba, and a Yale graduate, is well known in Latin America and other parts of the tropical world for hi, writings on agroforestry research and development. Dr. Rolain Borel, a Swiss pastures specialist, has headeI the Agroforestry Systems Program of CATIE for a number of years.

CATIE is also concernea about the massive damage caused by colonization in Central America, particularly on the Atlantic coast, which is causing deep and irreversible changes in the use of the land. CATIE says that the private and public institutions charged with the promotion of forestry and agricultural development lack well-structured agroforestry programs with the appropriate methodologies to carry out the actions required. They also lack the conc-ete technical information needed to assist the producers.

CATIE's research and graduate Agroforestry Program are based en the hypothesis that, utilizing improved t-chnologies, the use and management of trees it,agricultural and livestock systems can ccntribute to the establishment of more stable and more diversified production systems which are less risky.

The general agroforestry objective of CATIE is to promote an i-Ifficient combination of trees,

crops, and animals, particularly in order to:

(1) develop the capability of national institutions to plan and introduce the agroforestry component in development projects;

(2) evaluate and provide superior germplasm of some tree species important for the agroforestry system in the region;

(3) design and evaluate improved agroforestry systems ; and

(4) provide coherent information to decision-makers and scientists in a form applicable by local technicians.

To accomplish these objectives, CATIE has three iines of action:

(1) To develop the capability of the national institutions through the motivation of the decision-makers, the training of technical people at different levels, the promotion of the establishment of agroforestry units in key institutions in each country, and documentation support. Graduate education, training, and technical assistance are the principal components of the strategy.

50

(2) To carry out research, based mainly on the development of systems methodology starting with a characterization of the existing systems in their ecological, productive, technological, anthropological, economic and financial context. The supporting research is based on the problems and potentials detected to evaluate and propose solutions which can be easily transferred and adopted.

As part of this supporting research, progress has been made in the selection and massive diffusion of superior germplasm of tree species important in the agroforestry systems of the region, such as Erythrina species, Gliricidia sepium, Inga species, Cordia alliodora, and fruit trees. On the other hand, research is carried out on new technologies for the management of trees ir, combination with crops and pastures, such as propagation, pruning, animal feeding, nutritional cycling, and alley cropping.

The design and evaluation of improved agroforestry systems in pilot projects is the last phase of the methodology used to evaluate the adoption of new technologies, including simulation models.

(3) To supply technical information to the local technicians.

Since its establishment in 1976 the Agroforestry Program of CATIE has become a pioneer in the field not only in Latin America but in other parts of the world as well. The priority agroforestry systems for CATIE are: live fences, agroforestry systems for commercial perennial trees such as coffee and cocoa, alley farmlng with annual crops, and silvopastoral systems for cattle and goats in confinement.

CATIE has been the leading force for the development of agroforestry systems by the national institutions in Costa Rica and other Central American countries.

The United Nations University, the German Agency for Technir~l Co-operation (GTZ), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), and the Japanese International Co-operation Agency (JICA) have supported the agroforestry activities of CATIE.

The publication in 1986, in Spanish, of the comprehensive manual Agroforestry Systems: principles and applications in the tropics, made jointly with the Orga~iization for Tropical Studies (OTS), with financial support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), constitutes a landmark in the development of agroforestry in the tropics.

51

Detailed information about CATIE and the situation in C-ntral America is available in the article -The development of agroforestry in Central America-, by Gerardo Budowski, now Head, Program of Natural Resources and Quality of Life, University of Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica, in the book Agoroforestry: A decade of development, edited by H.A. Steppler and P.K.R. Nair, just published by ICRAF as part of the celebrations of the 10th Anniversary.

POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

What is the potential role of agroforestry in South and Central America? How do the potential and the constraints to agroforestry relate to larger policy development issues?

In his very good paper on -The use of agroforestry to improve the productivity of converted tropical lands", Dr Lundgren (1982) states:

'The promise of the agroforestry approach to the development of converted land lies in the fact that it has the potential of addressing some of the key ecological and socio-economic problems of such land, e.g. declining soil fertility, erosion, food and fuel scarcity, etc. By careful optimization of the positive interactions between wocdy components and

crops/animals it should be possible to obtain a high total, a more sustainable and a more diversified production from the land than it is possible with conventional- approaches. The systematic development of suitable "multipurpose- trees/shrubs will be an essential comoonent in strategies aiming to achieve this goal. There is practically untapped genetic potential for improving such species for soil improvement, fuelwood and fodder production, compatibility with and enhancement of crop production, microclimatic improvement, etc. Similarly, there is unlimited scope for innovative and imaginative combinations of trees/shrubs and crops/animals-.

Further on, Dr Lundgren adds: -It is more difficult to assess the potential for agroforestry systems of technologies to be adopted on a scale by farmers and pastoralists. If, however, the relevant land use problems have been identified in dialogue with the concerned land users, and an ecologically, economically and socially adopted agroforestry -solution" is demonstrated to be feasible, there is no reason to believe that agroforestry will not be adopted. The crucial thing is to find locally acceptable solutions to problems which are perceived and realized by farmers". He makes refererce to the -diagnostic and design' methodology, which was

52

being dc.,eloped at ICRAF at that time by Dr J.B. Raintree to enable research and development agencies to do this.

Concerning the constraints and problems encountered in the development and adoption of agroforestry systems and technologies, Dr Lundgren states: -The most serious constraints to the development of agroforestry to its full potential are institutional. Agroforestryfalls between existing, well-established disciplines at all levels - educational, ministerial, scientific, etc. - but still requires an interdisciplinary approach and resources for its development. The trend today of agroforestry being regarded as a subdiscipline of forestry, and.thus the sole responsibility of forestry institutions, is not satisfactory and will prevent its efficient development. Other constraints and problemsinclude tree--hostile' land tenure and legislation in many countries, extension services lacking the necessary expertise to advise on integrated farming, farmers' reluctance to adopt more complex and time-consuming management practices, etc.-

From my own point of view, I would like to emphasize six policy and development issues.

(l) Investment in research must be continued and expanded. Research was the foundation for

the -green revolution' in agriculture. It will be more difficult and will take longer to accomplish a similar research revolution in agroforestry. Trees take longer to grow; the environments where they grow are more fragile; the interactions between treeF and shrubs, and crops and animals are more complex. However, we can learn from the -Green Revolution- the lesson for the success such as the focus of research on major crops important to largenumbers of the population; the concentration on key limiting production factors, such as the development of key varieties; the establishment of international research institutions and programs of excellence with sufficient resources and critical masses of highly competent research staff to accomplishbreak-throughs; their close cooperation with national programs dealing with the transfer of the research results and their adoption byfarmers; the production of improved seeds; the availability of agrochemicals and other inputs; the education of the farmers and their access to credit lines; the establishment of processing and marketing channels. In other words, production-oriented research which is part of a development process.

I do not mean, of course, that the -green revolution- should be used as a paradigm for agroforestry. In any event, sustainability should be the aim, whether in the case of

53

risk-reduction with the introduction of multipurpose trees in small holdings or of increased productivity in the case of commercial plantations."

(2) Research efforts should be forward looking. Based on existing production problems and practices, research should anticipate the future. It should concentrate on the improvement of major agroforestry systems affecting large numbers of people. Because of tile impact and damage caused by the colonization in the humid tropics of the American continent, it should give priority to the reconversion of agricultural land, the improvement of the shifting agricultural systems, the increased efficiency of the mixed gardens, and the improvement of the genetic components, such as multipurpose trees and shrubs (including fruit trees) and food and fiber crops capable of growing well in association; aspects of this research should include the study of the genetics, biology, and physiology of plants tolerant to shade, with good photosynthetic capacity under conditions of low intensity of light and with root systems able to compete for nutrients and water. Attention snould be given also to the development of improved legume trees with a good capacity for nitrogen fixation to be used as shade in commercial plantations (bdch as coffee and cocoa) and the tropical pastures.

(3) Research must produce new technologies. Tile research sequence should be: farm-research-technology-farm. In other words, research should start with the practices used on the farms and should lead to improved and new agroforestry field technologies and systeis.

In their manual on -Agroforestry Systems-, CATIE and the Organization of Tropical Studies pointed out that in the 70s agroforestry was considered useful mainly as a land management system for marginal areas, particularly the dry and semi-dry land. Later, the concept of marginality was widened to include hilly lands and lands with excessive rain. Besides, it was recognized that agroforestry was productive in good soils, such as in mixed gardening and the commercial plantation of coffee, cocoa, and cononuts.

CATIE and the OTS stated that in the traditional uses of land in the tropics the diversification for reducing risks has been more important than optimizing production. Therefore, it will be necessary to develop and incorporate new technologies to make the systems more productive. The main challenge, therefore, is to design technoloaies appropriate to meet the specific natural, social and economic condition of the local farmers.

54

In his review on -The use of agroforestry to improve the productivity of converted tr)pical lands', Dr Lundgren stated that the studies of the agroforestry systems have been mainly descriptive and qualitative, although there was an increasing body of quantitative information on various agroforestry technologies. He indicated that since much of the novelty of agroforestry as a field of systematic research and development lies in the introduction of trees and shrubs into agricultural and pastoral lands, attention was focused mainly on the tree/shrub components.

According to Dr Lundgren, three technologies received particular attention:

(a) multipurpose trees for food, fodder and soil protection and soil fertility; legume trees attracted particular attention, especially Leucaena, Acacia, Prosopis and Gliricidia in the tropical humid and semi-arid areas;

(b) management of woody components; and

(c) arrangements for compatibility between woody and non-woody components. Dr Lundgren added that little information was based on original trials and qualified experiments, and surprisingly little data was available on the effects of agroforestry species on soil.

Dr Lundgren concluded that wide scope existed for increasing land productivity in the tropics by combining trees and shrubs with annual crops and animals in suitable spatial or temporal arrangements. He stated that the crucial thing was to find locally acceptable solutions to problems which are perceived and realized by the farmer. For that reason, ICRAF was developing a -diagnosis and design- methodology to enable research and development agencies to meet the challenge.

I have quoted only twL of the many authors who have written on the subject of agroforestry technology. It is evident that the research base of agroforestry is still quite weak. To realize the large potential that exists for improved agroforestry systems, it will be essential to widen and strengthen the research base, a forward-looking research base. At the same time, the research carried out must lead to the development of improved or new technologies.

(4) A multidisciplinary approach must be maintained. The integrated and multidisciplinary character of agroforestry is usually emphasized. True, agroforestry involves forestry, agriculture, and animal husbandry, the tree/crop interface being the crucial element. But not only that, it also involves horticulture, ecology, economics,

55

sociology, anthropology, geography, and other fields. This poses, of course, several obstacles and problems, as inthe case of multiple-cropping systems. In all cases, improved land use is the common denominator,

-Education at technical and professional levels-, says Dr Lundgren, -is almost everywhere along traditional disciplinary lines, i.e., forestry, agriculture, animal husbandry, etc. Similarly, research institutions are normally mandated to work on strictly discipline-oriented problems. Even where systems research programmes' are being undertaken, they are often, and understandably, strongly biased towards the discipline of the institute where they are based. At government and administrative levels, rigid boundaries are nor-ially maintained between departments dealing with various aspects of land use (forestry, agriculture, livestock, etc.), boundaries often being strengthened by increasing competition for scarce development resources. In many, probably most, tropical developing countries, forestry and agriculture are under different ministries, with the latter normally being the big and important ministry with respect to land management, but with the former charged with responsibility for agroforestry-.

These problems do exist. But we cannot expectagroforestry to become a new discipline, nor a

new profession, nor can we expect governments to place under an agroforestry ministry all matters pertaining to land use. Perhaps we can look at the situation from a positive point of view. Perhaps agroforestry is stronger because it combines the efforts of foresters,agriculturists, animal husbandrymen, and other professionals from other disciplines.

Agricultural research in general is moving away from discipline-oriented research to multidisciplinary production research. As CATIE suggested, the establishment of agroforestry units in the various institutions can b,- promoted. Administrative techniques have been developed to deal with these kinds of problems.

Undoubtedly the foresters have taken the lead in agroforestry, possibly because the trees and shrubs are the key components. The fact that one profession is fully behind agroforestry is very encouraging.

In any event, agroforestry, by its nature, will continue to be multidisciplinary.

(5) Diffusion and adoption are essential. 6Ecause the process of taking the results of research to the farmer and taking the production problems to the workers is a complexand difficult process, we keep on calling it by

56

different names, hoping that way to make it miore effective. In my own country, Colombia, many years ago we talked of fomento (promotion); in the 1940s it was changed to extension; later on it became integrated rural development; for the last few years we have been calling it transfer of technology; now we are told that we should call it diffusion. All are one-way words, whereas the process is two-way.

Whatever the name, it is an essential part of the process of research and technologydevelopment. There are ways and means to do it effectively. One way is to make systematic assessments of the relevance of agroforestrytechnologies to solve real problems in a farming systems context, as Dr Lundgren has proposed. He points out that considerable resources seem to be wasted on irrelevant research in agroforestry, such as the espacement of trees over crops when farmers are not interested in that tree species. He adds that one factor which will always facilitatethe adoption of new technologies by farmers is when early cash returns can be de-monstrated.

,I tianuIn their manual on

- the experience should be analyzed in the light of the success they have had in involving the local population;

- projects which have yielded high economic returns and can becoie self-sufficient should be kept in mind;

- advantage should be taken of the reasons leading to success;

- incentives such as the distribution of trees should be used, although the economic justification of the role playedin reducing deforestation should be analyzed;trained extension personnel and audio-visual materials which show clearlythe relation between rational management and the sustained productivity of the water, the soils, the crops, the pastures and the forests are needed;

-- participation of the local people and the use of trees of multiple purpose and rapid growth to satisfy the needs of the population are important.

Dr Lundgren points out that extension services lacking the expertise to advise on integrated

one-Agrofolestry Systems­Asgrof-estanumer ofwaystts ocomplexfarmine farmers reluctant to adopt moreCATIE and the OTS suggest a number of ways to andand time-consuming management practicesare important constraints.

make the diffusion process effective, such as: the recommendations should be based on In any event, I should say that practicalsufficient research information; training of extension agents, education of the

57

farmers, and field demonstration of locally proven practices are essential for the diffusion and adoption of improved and new agroforestry systems and practices.

(6) Agroforestry projects must be a part of rural and regional development programs. The "green revolution" would not have been a contemporary food production revolution if the "miracle" varieties of maize and rice developed at the research centres had been adopted only by a few privileged farmers.

Concerning agroforestry Dr Lundgren said:

"We are talking about hundreds of millions of

farmers and landless people spread over vast expanses of tropical lands. Physical as well as socio-economic limitations are legion. Rapid population growth, unsafe land tenure, erosion, droughts, floods, declining soil fertility, lack of infrastructure, political instability, illiteracy and other development problems often characterize those vast areas where agroforestry approaches to land use have a potential role to play. It is therefore obvious that agroforestry development can never be seen in isolation fihom general social and physical development problems".

In his report, John Bene and his colleagues concluded: "Rural development is one of the

most pressing issues of our time and agroforestry can help it by making the land more productive-.

In 1985, Gerardo Budowski stated: "The conflicts of the use of the land for agriculture, forestry and conservation in the tropical regions are far from being solved. Rather it is possible that they may be identified in the next decades. To overcome them it will be necessary to have a more exact vision of the needs and customs of the farmers and to make efforts to stabilize the rural populations. This objective requires a wider approach to the problems of rural development".

Finally, CATIE and OTS said in their manual on "Agroforestry Systems-: "The utilization of agroforestry systems cannot solve grave problems of rural poverty, malnutrition, low productivity and other consequences of underdevelopment, which have deep roots and require extended changes to overcome them. Hoiever, in many cases the diffusion of agroforestry practices can alleviate such priblems especially if they are incorporated to ozller development efforts, such as watershed management, integrated rural development, soil conservation, and management of natural resources-

This is, of course, if the agroforestry

58

practices are appropriate.

These statements are not rhetoric. They describe the real situation. I have quoted them to make one point: much progress has been made in the last decade to bring to the fore the importance, potential, and limitations of agroforestry, to describe the existing systemsand practices, and to start research programs to improve them and develop new ones. However, we have a long way to go before agroforestry becomes a major component of regional and rural development,

To accomplish this is a matter of public concern, public policy and public opinion, not just of the adoption of the results of research by a few farmers here and there. But it is not just a matter of public information and publicrelations. Concerted and decisive action must be taken both at the national and international level to mobilize leaders - research leaders, extension leaders, government leaders, political leaders - based on research facts and the successful experiences of well-conceived, locally adopted agroforestry practices.

As John Bene and IDRC said ten years ago: -Life in the tropics is far from easy. The strugglefor survival of all things is continuous and intense. To insure a good life for the ever-increasing population there, the skills

and experiences inherited from the past must be melted with the finding of modern science-.

There is here and tomorrow is today, because tFe problems of tomorrow are a consequence of the actions we take today.

IDRC STATEMENT ON AGROFORESTRY

(1) Agroforestry is a sustainable management system for land that increases overall production, combines agricultural crops, tree crops, and forest plants, and/oranimals simultaneously or sequentially, and applies management practices that are compatible with the cultural problems of the loc-l population.

(2) Trees are the dominant natural vegetationin most of the tropics, and with few exceptions must remain so if the land is to be used for the greatest benefit of man. More than half of all land in the tropics, although too dry, too steep, or too rocky to be classified as arable land, is

suitable for the practice of agroforestry.

Extracted from Bene, J.G.; H.W. Beall, and A. C6t, Trees, Food and People: Land Management in the Tropics. Ottawa, IDRC, 1977, pages 39-46.

59

(3) In most Gf the tropical zone, trees and agricultural crops do best in combination, All through history, people have depended on trees for food and feed, and to maintain the productivity of the land. In the perhumid tropics, trees, are the most productive crop, and they remove few nutrients from the soil. In very dry areas deep-rooted trees such as Prosopis (algaroba), Ceratonia (carobs), and Anacardium (cashews) will grow large volumes of nourishing food where nothing else will thrive. Between these extremes of climate, trees, agricultural crops, and the raising of animals can be judiciously combined to take advantage of the favorable growing conditions and to be least affected by the constraints of the tropics, whether they are biological, social, or economic.

(4) One of the objectives of agroforestry is to domesticate' and upgrade shifting agriculture to maximize sustained production on less well-endowed land, whether the produce is food, fuel, building material or products that can be sold. Another way is to grow crops in hitherto unproductive areas,

(5) The trend in food production over the last few hundred years has been toward increasing specialization. Forestry and

food production have been so effectively separated that studies of trees whose principal uses are not timber or firewood, or trees that have multiple uses such as the rubber tree, are considered to be the concern of other disciplines. Unlimited energy and research were mainly directed to improve tropical export crops, such as coffee and cocoa. The tropical forester was concerned with conservation and timber production and the "slash-and-burn- farmer became his number one enemy.

(6) Self-sufficiency in food has become all-important and the role of trees to extend food production from 25 to 75/ of the tropical land areas has become a matter of great importance. But the capacity of trees to produce large food or feed crops and other goods too on marginal land or under extreme weather conditions, and to do this without jeopardy to the environment, is not yet fully appreciated.

(7) Close cooperation between agriculturists and foresters is needed to use trees effectively in combination with other crops and animals. Forestry teaching in tropical tree science must be expanded to include all benefits from trees. A broader look at the potential of trees will also lead to the re-examination of how to group them for

60

different objectives. The range may extend from the legendary impenetrable jungle to

regions the natural ecosystems in which the genes occur are fast disappearing.

widely spaced trees to allow for intercropping or pasturing. (11) The world-wide effort to improve the

(8) Much knowledge about trees*and their interaction with crops and animals can be

utilization of wood fiber has seldom been matched for nonwood products. Products that have significant economic

found in different corners of the globe, Some of it is well documented and recorded. Other information has to be

and social potential should be identified, and then systematic research carried out on how to manage

collected at.the grassroot level and verified. Information collected will have to be tested on different soils in different ecological zones and disseminated

tie trees and how to harvest, process,and distribute their products. The research must then be widely disseminated and demonstrated.

to decision-makers, technical experts, and technicians and demonstrated to the (12) Systematic research is needed to find farmers. Farmers will have to be trained to adapt th2 new knowledge to their own

appropriatc combinations of vegetation for different climatic zones and soil

specific conditions. conditions, and to devise practices

(9) Reconstruction and verification of present that are acceptable to toe local population.

practices will reveal gaps in knowledge and opportunities for improving the systems. (13) It is a misconception to believe that

(10) The natural forest of the tropics is a it takes a long time until a tree grows to marketable size or until it starts

vast reservoir of valuable genetic bearing fruit. There are many species resources. Trees that seem to have of fast-growing trees. underused potential must be identified, tested in different ecological zones, improved where necessary, and introduced. There is an urgent need to carry out this research because in some

(14) The cost of increasing the productivity of combined systems and of extending agroforestry into hitherto unproductive regions appears small when compared

61

with the potential benefit of greatly increased and more consistent production. What is needed is fact finding and dissemination of verified information, demonstration, and making good quality trees available from nurseries.

(15) Training of farmers and extension workers in the management, utilization, and marketing of tree crops should follow the successful patterns developed in the improvement of agricultural practices. The objective is to make the systems more productive, more labor effective, and more resistant to weeds and pests.

(16) Rural development is one of the most pressing issues of our time and agroforestry can help it by making the land more productive.

62

PRESENT AND POTENTIAL ROLE OF AGROFORESTRY IN AFRICA

Dr S C Nana-Sinkam Director, Joint ECA/FAO Agriculture Division of

the UN Economic Commission for Africa Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Dr Nana-Sinkam was formerly Head of the Research Programming and Planning Service, Federal Ministry of Planning, Yaounde, Cameroon. He was an economisL with FAO, Rome, Italy in 1967-1970, after which he became,

S successively, an executive director, IMF, a professor at the University of Paris IX, Dauphine, a consultant with Chase Manhattan Bank, New York, and a consultant with the Central Banking Department, IMF, Washington, DC.

First of all, I should like to thank the indicative of its strong support for promoting International Council for Research in the knowledge and techniques of agroforestry, Agroforestry (ICRAF) for inviting me to and for popularizing these practices at tie participate in this special conference marking national and regional levels. We in ECA its tenth anniversary. The decision of the believe that the findings of this conference Government of Kenya to host this conference is would contribute to widening the scope of these

63

methodologies not only in technical terms but also at The political level, especially when the agricultural sector has to seek realistic solutions to feed the present and future populations of our continent, within the framework of a balanced and protected environment,

The International Council for Research in Agroforestry has achieved ten years of activity since its establishment at the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam in 1977 and its subsequent move to Nairobi, Kenya, the following year. We recognize the enormous contribution of ICRAF, especially in promoting research and training in Africa with a view to increasing the productive capacity of the agricultural sector, particularly agroforestry. Ten years is, of course, a long period of activity for any institution. However, in terms of translating new methodologies and appropriate technologies into concrete practices, it is far from long, given, especially, the differences in culture, tradition, inherited practices, availability of resources and even the political systems of African countries.

During the last ten years the agricultural sector of African countries has, in general, performed poorly. For instance, according to FAO the per capita total agricultural

production and per capita food production declined on average by 1.1% and 1.2/, respectively, between 1978 and 1985. Furthermore, despite efforts to prevent food losses, there was an estimated 2.9 billion US dollars worth of cereals lost after harvesting in the whole of Africa in 1985. Human and animal pressure, combined with the effects of recurrent drought, heavy rains, locusts and other pests, as well as political factors, affected the normal development and transformation of this sector. With respect to forests, in spite of the efforts made by most African governmentz to promote afforestation and reforestation and more efficient forest management and soil conservation, the forest stands continue to be depleted. Thus, the estimated loss of volume of wood products amounted to about 500 million cubic metres per year. In other words, if these resources were channelled towards building construction, more than 50 million new wooden houses could have been bui.t each year ii Africa. Apart from these obvious, harmful effects, there is also a permanent degradation of the remaining stands, natural pastures, wildlife, water resources and woody vegetation.

The present state of knowledge on agroforestry systems throughout our cotitinent is the result of the cumulative transmission of specialized practical experience by farmers since time

64

immemorial. In fact, although the term agroforestry" is a new word, for centuries

many African farmers used to grow their cropssimultaneously with trees and pastures. Their philosophy aimed at maximizing the productivecapacity of the soil and at minimizing the deterioration of water, forests and other natural resources. The cultivation of the Baobab tree (Adansonia digitata), and the charity tree and the utT'lzation of largeacacia species, for example Acacia senegal, which is protected by farmers in Nigeria and exploited under agroforestry criteria in theSudan, could be mentioned as examples of traditional agroforestry providing models for integrated water, soil and forest utilization in Africa.

The combination of agroforestry and pastoralismhave specific names in Africa like Taungya,bush fallow, or wooden savannah, to mention only a few of these systems. In North Africa,the vast areas of forests, used under silvo-pastoralism approaches which involve the use of pastures during the rainy seasons and the utilization of palatable leaves, pods,suckers and young branches during the cold anddry periods, have shown their capacity in providing feed for livestock and also in supplying fuelwood for the rural communities,Nevertheless, policies for rationalizing the combined use of pastures and trees must be

revitalized to cope with crucial problems of overstocking, fuelwood gathering, forest regeneration, forest fires and pastureimprovement in these zones. Mention must also be made of the cork tree agroforestry industrysystem, used in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Under this well-experimented system, the productive capacity of the soil is fullyutilized, benefittina the local cork indostryof the zone, which is an important source of income and which provides employment to the local farmers.

Similarly, in the West African islands of Sao Tome and Principe agroforestry plays an important role in their economy because, apartfrom favouring the production of cash and food crops, the existing 25,000 ha of protectiveagroforestry are at the same time important sources of timber supply for the local saw-milling industry. This type of land use and exploitation constitutes a realistic model of agriculture-forestry-industry integrationwhich, among other benefits, ensures a regularfood supply for the local communities. Nevertheless, these areas in many cases require more attention to renew and rehabilitate the old plantations, bearing in mind that adequatespacing and shading are essential elements fer ensuring regular food production. Rural extension services and the establishment of permanent trial plots in these zones would

65

maximize the cost-benefit of investment, especially when fhe local lahour force already possesses sufficient background knowledge in this domain. Moreover, policies oriented towards facilitating loans and credits to the farmers would increase not only the areas under agroforestry systems but 31so the productivity of these lands.

I shall now proceed to discuss further the situation in East Africa and to analyze some agroforestry shifting cultivation systems traditionally developed in zones occupied by Miombo woodlands. These can be seen in the case of the -Chitemene" (shifting) cultivation practised mainly in the northern provinces of Zambia; the -tobacco farming- in the Tabora region of Tanzania and the "cotton crop-shifting practice in northern Mozambique. -he common characteristic of these shifting cultivation practices is the systematic destruction of forest resources, to allow for a system of agriculture that in most cases is considered "subsistence'. The destruction of natural Miombo forests is usually neither compensated by the establishment of new plantations nor by regenerating the remaining root suckers and other regrowths. Consequently, if this trend of destruccion and degradation of soils, water and forest resources continues the Miombo woodlands will, sooner or later, disappear as a viable

ecosystem. Policies based on the utilization of new and renewable sources of energy and on reducing the mobility of shifting cultivators must he encouraged by the governments of this subregion. Furthermore, updating and promoting policies aimed at the combined development of agroforestry and livestock could reverse the negative impact caused by this shifting cultivation system on soil, water arnd forest resources. On the other hand, it is important to highlight the positive contribution that the Taungya and -Fanya Juu- agroforestry practices and terracing system have made in expanding the industrial afforested areas as well as in augmenting water harvesting in Kenya.

Furthermore, we cannot undervalue the importance of agroforestry policies in alleviating the problem of fuelwood and charcoal supply in this continent. As you are aware, fuelwood and charcoal consumption is over 360 million cubic metres per year, or the equivalent of about 83 million metric tons of oil. Moreover, if the present trend of population growth and fuelwood consumption continues, about 525 million cubic metres of fuelwood will be consumed by the end of this century. Hence, governments should improve their energy policies, through the promotion of agroforestry plantations for fuelwood and programmes for conserving forests and ligneous vegetation. These programmes could be promoted

66

by using a percentage of the savings generated by energy import substitution. If these plans are not promptly initiated, the extinction ofvaluable forest resources will take place in a matter of two or three centuries,

The environmental implications of biomass utilization (including fuelwood and charcoal) are important considerations in agroforestry policies and programmes. If biomass is increasingly used but not replenished, the consequences will be devegetation, deforestation, soil degradation and erosion, loss of biological diversity and climatic change. Those concerned with the environment's biological balance foresee a potential global crisis if present trends of biomass use for energy continue. Continued destruction of tropical rain forests, which account for most of the current global losses of forests, would mean the loss of an estimated 10 to 20 per cent of the earth's biota by the year 2000. Forest clearing, followed by destructive lano use,leads to soil erosion and soil impoverishment because many plants which fix and retain nitrogen an4 phosphates, making nutrients available in the soil surface layer, are destroyed in the process. The final consequence of deforestation and environmental problems is that people are affected. The poorbecome poorer as more time must be spent on collecting fuel or earning cash to pay for it

and less energy is available for essential tasks.

On the other hand, one sees, in contrast to the grim realities of irrational use of forest and environmental devastation, a remarkable potential of biomass energy development. For, despite regional scarcities, biomass is still the most widely available energy source which can be used in many ways. Each year, for instance, plants capture from the sun byphotosynthesis an amount of energy equal to all fossil fuel reserves. To put it another way,plants store each year 10 times more energy than the world currently uses. Sources of supply include trees, crop residues, human and animal wastes, energy crops (such as sugarcane) and plant life in seas, lakes and rivers. Diverse as the biomass energy is, we need an institutional framework to ensure its rational use. We need to develop policies and strategies for developing this important source of energy. Those policies and strategies need to be embodied in overall agroforestry policies for management and planning.

Fortunately, several African countries have introduced policies and programmes in agroforestry'to offset the present and future biomass (fuelwood and charcoal) supply crisis in Africa. A good exainple is Mozambique, where a few years ago a programme was adopted for

67

planting Eucalyptus for fuelwood production combined with agricultural crops to alleviate the present and future fuelwood and charcoal scarcity. Similarly, trials with fodder trees and shrubs, especially with Leucaena, were carried out in selected sites ih te country to increase both fodder production and the nitrogen content of the soils. Let me reiterate that, in our view, the introduction of trees and shrubs into farming system- can efficiently contribute towards reversing the decline in food production and in halting the continued environmental degradation.

Another area in which agroforestry has great potential is in the promotion and development of agroforestry industries. Indeed, processing industries for processing agricultural products should go beyond such crops as coffee, cocoa andI fruits. There is need for timber-based ineustries such as saw milling, particle and fibre-board, pulp and paper and impregnation of poles. African countries must also explore other possibilities, including extraction of :hemicals in charcoal-making processes, production of essential oil and natural resins, conversion of pulp into viscose rayon and processing beeswax. Most of these processes can bo carried out by small-scale industries and are therefore suited to present African rural conditions.

Research in agroforestry has clearly shown that costs of first afforestation establishment are compensated after a period of 3-4 years of cash and food crops cultivation. Hence, policies geared towards production of poles, fuelwood sleepers and other standard forms of timber uses together with food and cash crops would represent a positive contribution to alleviating the heavy pressure sustained by the natural forests and, at the same time, reduce the effects of food scarcity in Africa.

It seems quite -,vident that we cannot mention the term -potential role of agroforestry­without recognizing its direct relationship with training and research. Moreover, the new concern about integrating agroforestry and sustainable forest, soil and water management with land use should take into consideration not only the scientific approaches of soil management and conservation but also the existing trained manpower capabilities. The authorities responsible for formulating policy, and making decisions would have to know the potentials of these integrated systems in terms of agro-ecological and socio-economic balance before taking any decisions concerning land-use utilization and exploitation.

Agroforestry extension in various fields-- for example in the utilization of multipurpose species, the selection of fire-resistant forest

68

trees, the planting of joint fuelwood and food/cash crops, the development of agro-industrial plantations and the use of nitrogen-fixing varieties, together with information on density of plantations and water requirements, common trees, agriculture diseases and their treatment, and the storageand utilization of seeds - would contribute toincreasing the capacity of agroforestry for improving the social, economic and nutritional standards in rural communities. Legislation onagroforestry and livestock rearing should alsobe revised and updated, taking into account the experience and views of farmers who are actually involved in getting the most out ofland, forests and animal resources.

Finally, I would like to emphasize the urgentneed for co-operation in agroforestry,livestock and forest industries amonginstitutions concerned with these issues if our continent has any hope of being self-sufficient and self-reliant. The flow of specializedinformation on agroforestry policies, technologies, programmes and experiences shouldbe of immense benefit in those zones where population pressure is causing degradation anddiminution of soil, water and forest resources. In these zones, medium-term programmes accompanied by field trial projectsshould be of great potential.

Long-term agroforestry solutions would requirethe close collaboration of local peor --, with special emphasis on conserving soil, water and forests which have :iot been degraded yet but are threatened by practices of overexploitationand depletion, through overgrazing, overcutting and fires.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I would like to emphasize the beneficial effects of cluse co-operation between iCRAF, ECA, FAO and otherorganizations such as IGADD, SADDC, and PTA inthe promotion and development of agroforestryactivities at the subregional and national levels. Policies to revitalize the agricultural sector, taking into account the need for environmental conservation, mustundoubtedly include agroforestry, with due consideration being given to training and institutional support. As you know the Economic Commission for Africa has developedcapability in both areas and I would like to take this opportunity to express our continued readiness to support the activities of ICRAF and those of all other organizationsundertaking similar activities.

Once again, I thank you all for the opportunity to address this conference.

69

POLICY AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR AGROFORESTRY

G Edward Schuh Director, Agriculture and Rural Development

The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Formerly Professor of Agricultural Economics and Director of the Center for Public and Policy Administration, Purdue University, Dr Schuh was also Senior Staff Economist on President Ford's Council of Economic Advisors, and Deputy Under-Secretary for International Affairs and

4- Commodity Programs at the US Department of Agriculture. He was President of the American Agricultural Economics Association (1981-1982) and has had extensive international teaching, consultancy and advising experience in Latin America and India. He is Professor Honoris Causa at the Federal University of Vicosa.

The views expressed in this paper are the author's alone and in no way should be construed as official views of the World Bank. John Spears contributed significantly to the substance of this paper, and I am grateful.

70

It is a privilege and an honor to be with youtoday on the occasion of this important milestone in the history of ICRAF. I bring the regrets of Mr. Rajagopalan, my Vice President, who was originally scheduled to occupy this slot on the program. Unfortunately, he was not able to be with /ou personally, but he sends his best wishes for a successful conference and a bright and productive future for ICRAF.

I am especially pleased to address the topic of policy and research priorities for agroforestry. There is growing recognition ofthe importance of agroforestry to the developing countries. The negative impact that tropical deforestation has on rural fuel supplies, on agricultural productivity, a;id on the loss of soil and critical water resources, has forced this subject on to almost all our agendas. In many parts of the world agroforestry is now seen as the key t.o developing a sustainable agriculture,

Agroforestry is also increasingly seen as a source of income for poor rural people.Thousands upon thousands of farmers are taking up tree planting as a profitable agricultural activity. Much of this is a spontaneous response to the increasing scarcity of fuelwood, tree fodder, fruit, building poles, and other forest products that are essential inputs to the daily life of rural people. This

growing scarcity of these inputs is reflected in higher prices for poles and fuelwood that contribute to the profitableness of tree planting.

It was in recognition of the important role that agroforestry can play in poverty alleviation and in contributing to a more sustainable agriculture that the World Bank two years ago agreed to begin providing support forthe core funding of ICRAF. Our President, Barber Conable, recently referred to the Bank's commitment to addressing the problem oftropical deforestation. At a meeting of 25 world leaders in Bellagio last month the Bank reiterated its intention to at least double its support for forestry in the coming three years. A considerable part of that investment will be channeled to agroforestry programs.

The Bank also has taken a keen interest in helping ICRAF more systematically to incorporate its research into the manyagriculture and forestry development projects being financed by the Bank and other development agencies. Agriculture and forestry will continue to receive high priority in our future lending programs. (They currently account for about 25 percent of our total leaiding portfolio.)

Agriculture and agroforestry research in

71

particular are expected to play a central role in our lending activities. Research is critical in raising resource productivity, in protecting the national resource base for agricultural and more qeneral economic development, and for raising per capita incomes of rural people.

In the remainder of my remarks I would like to address three sets of issues:

(1) the economic viability of agroforestry farming systems;

(2) the key problem areas in agroforestry as we see them from a World Bank perspective; and

(Z) the Bank's support to the CGIAR system and the potential for future support for international research.

THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF AGROFORESTRY FARMING SYSTEMS

The 1977-1986 period has witnessed a sharp escalation in support for the forestry sector on the part of the major development banks. The four multilateral development banks invested approximately US$2 billion in forestry projects in this period. This represented

about a 13-fold increase in the volume of lending for this purpose compared to the* previous decade. Perhaps more important than the increase in lending, however, was the change in the composition of the portfolio. In the 1960s, for example, traditional industrial forestry projects accounted for 80 percent of bank investments in forestry. In the most recent decade, the banis revised their earlier forestry policies to give much greater support to agroforestry, fuelwood, watershed protection and forestry conservation. Agroforestry lending, for example, jumped during this past decade from 6 to 37 percent of total bank forestry investment.

One reason for this growth in lending for agroforestry is the relatively high rates of return these projects yield. Contrary to earlier misgivings about the doubtful economic returns from long-term forestry investments, this has not been a constraint to World Bank support for such projects. Our agroforestry investments are earning high rates of return, and we believe it is important to emphasize this point. In fact, as Table 1 shows, agroforestry projects financed by development banks have significantly higher economic rates of return than those yielded by the industrial plantation forestry that characterized earlier lending programs.

72

Table 1: Comparative rates of return for forestry projects financed oy development banks during the decade 1977-1986

Category of project

Industrial plantation

forestry

Agroforestry/Fuelwood

Watershed rehabilitation

Source: Bank Annual Reports

Table 2 summarizes the cash flow and financial rate of return for a typical cash crop tree farming operation in the Philippines. These data are from a project in which several thousand small farmers have taken up cash crop tree farming for production of pulpwood, poles,timber, charcoal or fuelwood. As can be seen from the table, financial rates of return to the farmer from such investments are in the order of 20-30 percent.

No. of Range of economic projects rates of return reviewed (Percent)

15 10-15

27 15-30

8 15-21

The data in Table 2 point to an important problem with such enterprises, however. The farmer does not begin to reap a return until the seventh year of the project. Few small farmers could wait this long to receive a return on their investment. But that is where the agroforestry concept comes into play. The farmer needs to have enough land to produce food and other cash crops to carry him through the cash flow problem. For new settlers,

73

Table 2: Philippines Smallholder Tree Farming Project. Summarized cash flow and financial rate of return for a 10-ha Albizzia falcataria tree farmer (US$ 1980)

Activity Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Cumulative planted area (ha)

Annual area harvested (ha)

Net cash inflow

-

-

4

-

8

-

10

-

10

-

10

-

10

1.25

10

1.25

10

1.25

10

1.25

10

1.25

10

1.25

10

1.25

10

1.25

10

1.25

10

1.25

Loan Net revenue

Net cash outflow

640 -

640 -

320 -

- - -828 864 958 958 1034 1111 1111 1181 958 953

Investment US$ per (he)

Debt service

Net cash flow

665

(25)

675 -

(35)

343

(23)

-

-

-

- -

-

828

709

155

709

249

709

249

709

325

709

402

709

402

709

472

-

958

-

958

Financial rate of return computed over 25 years

Compounded at 12 percent

= 22 percent

74

consumption credit for the first year may also be needed,

The experience here in Kenya has produced similar results. Small farm woodlots of Acacia mearnsii and Eucalyptus, covering theequivalent of some 60,000 hectares, provideeuivletiof somer and abovetes, ove surplus income over and above the value of domestically consumed poles of fuelwood. For many rural families this represents their only significant source of surplus farm income,

These examples from the Philippines and Kenya refer to situations where farmers practise agroforestry cash crop tree farming in discrete woodlots which are maintained under tree cover and operated on a rotational basis. High economic rates of return are also being earned by agroforestry projects in which trees are interplanted with crops, or included as an integral component of livestock farming systems to produce products for domestic consumption and to protect soil and water resources. Our evaluation of costs and benefits takes intoaccount both the positive and negative effects of trees on crop yields and on livestock output, as well as the cash value of forest products.

Table 3 illustrates the importance of taking into account these effects on crop yields and soil conservation. The data in this table summarize the results of a recent development

bank appraisal of a shelterbelt/agroforestry program in Northern Nigeria. If the analysis in this particular case had been confined onlyto consideration of the benefits from the wood, the Internal rate of return would have been In the order of 4.7 percent. This is below the uopportunity cost of capital and would probably have led to the project being rejected for Bank financing. However, when the benefits of improved fodder availability, the positive impact of shelterbelts on crop yields,

prevention of sail erosion and enhancement of soil fertility were taken into account, the rate of return jumped to between 16-21 percent. To summarize, just as in the case of the Bank's expe ri e in ar i n t eca e of t an experience in agriculture, the important message is that investing in poverty-oriented agroforestry projects is an economically viable activity that requires no special justification

on humanitarian or environmental grounds. That explains in part why there is a great deal of spontaneous cash crop tree farming taking placein the Philippines, in India, in Kenya, inPakistan, and elsewhere. Agroforestry projectscan ensure increased farm productivity and income for rural people, as well as protectionof the farming systems environment, especially soil and water resources. We hope this message will help to persuade both national governments and other finance agencies to give more attention to support for agroforestry programs.

75

Table 3: Appraisal of economic benefits of an Agroforestry/Shelterbelt/ Soil Conservation Project in northern Nigeria

Internal rate Agroforestry component of return A/)

Wood/fruit benefit alone 7.4 Wood/fruit benefits plus positive impact of

trees on conservation of soil and crop yield 16.9

Shelterbelt component

Wood benefits alone (poles/fuelwood) 4.7 Wood benefits plus positive impact of shelterbelt

on soil conservation and crop yield 21.8

The original analysis includes a Lroad range of rates of return related to different assumptions about the phasing of benefits, level of crop yields and other variables. Table 3 summarizes the high and low ends of the analysis results.

PROBLEM AREAS AND CONSTRAINTS TO AGROFORESTRY designed to gain a better understanding of the cost-effectiveness of alternative policies forIn the brief time available I would like to encouraging farmer and community participation

address five problem areas which constitute in agroforestry schemes. The Bank currentlypriority areas of research. First, we in the supports the use of a wide range of incentiveBank see the need for more policy research instruments, including credit, giving farmers

76

guaranteed access to markets, guaranteed market prices, distribution of free or subsidized seedlings, decentralization of seedlingproduction so as to involve schools and small farmers in their production, and land tenure reforms aimed at ensuring farmers and local communities security of tenure over the land onwhich they can grow trees. We are also experimenting with revolving funds, taxrebates, and fiscal incentives. Co-financing of agroforestry by World Food Programme aid has also been successfully used for stimulating agroforestry projects.

To dale there has been little systematic research into the cost- effectiveness of these alternative incentive measures, or ef the situations in which they are appropriate. We intend to undertake research in conjunction with the Rockefeller Foundation to explore these issues in depth. Assistance from ICRF in this endeavor would be helpful, and we are asking our staff to explore with ICRAF how theycould contribute to this important study.

A second major concern we have is with the criticism frequently leveled at the Bank by some environmental and non-governmental agencies about our alleged over-preoccupation with exotic species such as Eucalyptus and with growing wood for industrial markets instead of more essential subsistence requirements such as

fuelwood. We are concerned that there is an urgent need to reassess the scientific evidence for and against the use of exotic species.There is also a need to tailor their use to local socio-economic conditions, taking into account farmer and community perceptions of the usefulness of different trees for different end uses.

To resolve this issue we have created a joint working group with leading environmental agencies and NGOs, including representatives from Asian, African, and Latin American countries. We are worBing towards preparationof improved guidelines for situations in which exotic species should or should not be used in agroforestry programs. We hope that ICRAF can contribute to this dialogue, particularly in relation to making an objective assessment of the technical advantages and limitations of various exotic tree species.

A third concern we have is the lack of capacity to produce and distribute new production technology. Research can ease the constraints to increasing output, and raise productivity in the sector. New production technology is a source of augmented income streams. Providingfarmers with improved planting material and with improved techniques of production is the most important thing we can do to strengthen this sector.

77

The fourth, and possibly the most serious, institutional constraint we face in attempting to support agroforestry research is the weakness of agroforestry research programs. We are especially concerned about the failure to integrate agriculture and forestry research efforts. Although ICRAF has made an admirable effort to integrate forestry research more closely with agriculture, livestock, sociology, social sciences, and other disciplines, it remains a sad fact that at the national level few research institutions have achieved a similar integration.

Instead of such integration, we repeatedly find agricultural research continuing to focus on what is perceived as high priority issues by agriculturists (e.g., rice, wheat and maize breeding), while forestry research institutes continue to concentrate on more familiar research topics such as tree improvement or improved utilizatiot.. How to achieve a merging of these interests and to create an effective national agroforestry research network is a challenge to all of us. The Bank intends to give high priority to that issue in the years ahead, in conjunction with ICRAF, FAO, and other agencies.

Finally, I could not close this section without saying something about the problems of general economic policy toward agriculture and

forestry. Regrettably, economic policy still discriminates seriously against agriculture and forestry in most developing countries by shifting the domestic terms of trade against the sector. What this does is to cause farmers and policy-makers alike to undervalue the land and other natural resources. It is no wonder, then, that farmers do not husband these resources and attempt to develop their productive potential. Instead, they set out to mine them and move on.

Similarly, government interventions which do not let markets emerge in fuelwood and other forestry products keep the production of such products from being profitable. Such interventions are often undertaken in the name of helping the poor. Needless to say, their consequence is typically just the opposite. Showing the costs and consequences of these policies should be high on our research agenda.

THE BANK'S SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH

The world food crisis of the mid-1960s, one of which seems to occur about every ten years, eventually led to the establishment of a system of 13 International Agricultural Research Centres, brought together under the umbrella of the Consultative Group on International

78

Agricultural Research. One of the motivations for establishing this system was a general recognition that growth in agricultura productivity could not be achieved simply by transferring technology frcn the developed to the developing countries - the pattern that had prevailed during most of the post-World War II period. There was growing recognition that agricultural production technology was highlylocation-specific, and at least the biological forms of this technology had to be developed locally, to fit the prevailing economic and ecological conditions.

The original concept was that these Centres, which are strategically located around the world, could draw upon a global stock of knowledge and talent to address some of the urgent research needs of the developing countries. As the Centres have matured, it has become increasingly clear that the weak link in the system is the National Agricultural Research Institutes, and donor attention is now shifting to them.

The International Centre: have proved to be an effective vehicle for transferring new production technology, based largely on improved crop varieties, but extending far beyond that, to the developing countries, along with the research technology of how to adapt innovations developed in the Centres to local

conditions. For example, the improved genetic materials generated by the Centres for wheat and rice have resulted in improved varieties that now cover some 115 million hectares (equivalent to half the total planting of wheat and rice in the developing world). These improved varieties annually yield about 50 million tons more than the old varieties would have produced, which is enough feed grains for about 500 million people. The work of the Centres has also helped raise the productivity of maize, field beans, livestock, and other crops.

Through their research and training the Centres have also raised the capability of literally thousands of research personnel. The work of the Centres has also helped us to better understand the economics of farming enterprises, and their work on policy issues has contributed to obtaining more rational economic policies at the national level.

In short, the payoff to investments in this system has been handsome indeed. An importantissue is whether the donors can recover from their present aid-tiredness and contribute to further expansion of the system.

The World Bank has recently engaged in a number of other initiatives on the research side. Centrally, the Bank has either begun, or is

79

beginning, to provide core funding for support of non-CGIAR research centres such as ICIPE, ICRAF, IUFRO, IFDC and III. The Bank's Board of Executive Directors this year also approved $2 million as a linkage fund to provide support for non-CGIAR research centres whose programs of research are related to the CGIAR system. It is expected that this will be a continuing allocation. And over the last three years the two African regions of the Bank have undertaken a major effort at assessing the agricultural research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa, pursuant to identifying ways in which national agricultural research capacity can be strengthened.

Finally, there is the Special Program for African Agricultural Research SPAAR),AfricanPEReseaAM, (the(the aAgrculura program created by the donors to provide more effective coordination among themselves and to devise ways of cooperating to strengthen national agricultural research systems. Although its life is short, the promise of this program in rationalizing donor support for research in the region is great.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Let me conclude with four points. First, the Bank is connitted to continued support of research in both agriculture and in

agroforestry. The new technology and improved policy which such research engenders is a pervasive source of new income streams for developing countries, and thus the key to their­future economic growth.

Second, with specific reference to agroforestry research, the ultimate concern of all of us must remain that of ensuring that research results are transferred rapidly to the farmer and local communities through well-orchestrated extension and outreach programs. That particular aspect of the Bank's association with ICRAF will receive our greatest support in the coming years.

Third, I am struck that research centres and programs as disparate as ICRAF, IUFRO, IMMI,T ICLAR hav ICIPE, IFDC, IBSRAM, and ICLARM have a commonality in the themeIt of naturalme resourcestheseaosust.alnability. strikes that and ous t centres and p roga s mhat int various centres and programs might begin to coordinate their various activities around that theme, with a significant increase in their contribution to the common good being the result.

Finally let me thank you for the opportunity to address this important conference. Our congratulations to ICRAF on what it has achieved in its first decade, and our best wishes for many more productive and creative years ahead.

80

FUELING THE FOREST

Joseph H Hulse Vice-President Research Programs

International Development Research Centre Ottawa, Canada

Dr Hulse is Chairman of the International Council of Scientific Unions' ... Commission on the Application of Science, Agriculture, Forestry andAquaculture. He is a member of the International Panel on Food Security,.4 Agriculture, Forestry and Environment of the World Commission on Environment

and Development (the -Brundtland Commission'). He was awarded the degree ofDoctor of Science (Honoris Causa) by theLiniversity of Guelph, Canada.

BIRTH, BAPTISM AND BEGINNING Though iCRAF was not born into totally abject poverty, it came into the world with littleSpeaking as one who witnessed the conception, expectation of an opulent lifestyle. Throughgestation, delivery and baptism of the infant its earliest years it survived on modestICRAF, it is with satisfaction and pleasure support from a small handful of donors. It isthat I welcome this hardy perennial to its therefore gratifying to read in the most recentcoming of teenage. Progress Report that seven donors have

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not

necessarily of the International Development Research Centre.

81

committed some $2.2 M to core support and nine donors promise an additional $2.1 M for restricted core activities.

Among his many profound and wise observations Confucius had the following to say: "If you wish to govern-successfully, the first thing needed is the definition of terms. If terms are ill-defined, statements disagree with facts and business is mismanaged; when business is mismanaged, order and harmony do not flourish; when order and harmony do not flourish, then justice becomes arbitrary; when justice becomes arbitrary the people do not know how to act, how to move hand or foot".

Logan Pearsall Smith suggested that "our names

are labels, plainly printed on the bottled essence of our past behaviour-. In common with most new parents, ICRAF's founding fathers debated for some time before choosing a proper name, indeed before defining exactly the new infant's purpose and how it could best be described. Some favoured 'Agri-silviculture-, others -Agro-silviculture-, one or two opted for "Agro-silvi-pastoral culture", others argued for "Agro-forestry". I believe it was Dr. Kenneth King, that exceptionally eloquent exponent of elegant English, who convinced us that "Agroforestry" was le mot juste.

The first grant made by IDRC was to the

international Support Unit for Agroforestry. The proposal described the purpose as being "to aissemrnate hard facts on production systems combininn trees, agricultural crops and animal-'. The Unit's resources would be channelled into -fact finding and to facilitating cooperation between agencies conducting research into agroforestry-. The second and all subsequent grants were to the International Council for Research in Agroforestry.

The initial emphasis upon information gathering and dissemination probably has itq origins in a series of meetings of senior African foresters

:,o invited IDRC to esLablish and support an .,.Irican bbuireau ofo forestry, a service that

would assist the exchange of information among national forestry research, development and management units throughout Africa. IDRC responded early in 1976 by setting up a small unit here in Nairobi consisting of two foresters whose responsibility was -to provide information and technical guidance for the afforestation of marginal lands, shelter belt establishment, species selection, plantation techniques and soil protection-. This unit continued its information service to African foresters for several years, distributing a regular newsletter and other publications. it became essentially redundant as ICRAF's more comprehensive facili;*ies were established.

82

TCRAF's first Board of Trustees was not satisfied to restrict the Council's activities to an information and advisory service. It insisted that for ICRAF to survive and succeed it must itself sponsor and conduct research. It was particularly emphasized that ICRAF dedicate its intellectual and material resources to the elaboration of agroforestry research methodologies and, in cooperation with other agencies, to stimulate the adoption of reliable methodologies as a means to more efficient and conservative use of terrestrial resources. That ICRAF has followed this directive and continues effectively to do so is a matter of record, recognized and respected by all who have been associated with the Council. The Director and his staff are to be heartily congratulated upon the remarkable progress the Council. has made in recent years.

Additional to its program of record, but less exactly quantifiable, is ICRAF's inspiration and incitement to governments and donors to pay more attention to forestry in general and to agroforestry in particular. Those of us who have supported forestry research over many years welcome the publicity and enhanced reputability which ICRAF's activities have engendered.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Statistics of forest depletion and degradation are now a common feature of reports of international commissions of economic development and security. Many remind us that tropical forest equivalent in hectarage to half the area of the United Kingdom are destroyed every year; that less than half the area of tropical forests that existed at the beginningof this century still remains; that of the remaining forested area 1.5% is deforested annually.

The forest resource is among the least valued by economists and politicians alike, a punyproportion of the wood used for fuel and rural construction is either costed or enters into national income and resource accounts. Strategic planning of sustainable systems appears woefully neglected and income and employment opportunities are sadly underestimated. Canada, whose economy is deeply dependent upon forest industries, displays a dismal lack of concern for conservation of th4 - vital natural resource. Between 1975 and 1982 approximately 6.3 M hectares of Canadian forest were harvested. Over the same period, less than 1.2 M hectares were replanted. At the same time, i: addition to deliberate harvesting, roughly 19 M hectares of Canadian forest were destroyed by fire. The

83

area damaged by pests, sucn as the Spruce Budworm, was extensive but not easily quantified.

Canadian silviculture

Not only is man destroying the forest wi,:h axe and saw. Air and soil pollution from factories and automobiles is reducing the resistance to infection among many species of maple, ash, birch, hickory and other Canadian hardwoods. Many are dying a slow death. The propagation and plantation of more resistant species is as necessary as a war against pollution.

Canadian research scientists are examining the susceptibility of rejuvenation of explants from various species. Though most attention is given to conifers, the production uf haploids from anther culture in poplars is of particular interest. A recent (1987) publication by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, "Cell and Tissue Culture in Forestry", lists 56 papers that describe varying degrees of success with embryo and ovule culture in forest tree species.

A recent paper put out by the Government of Ontario Tree Improvement lnd Forest Biomass Institute emphasizes the importance of genetic improvement in future forest management. Though, in the past, conventional methods of selection, breeding and progeny testing !lave

contributed profitably to Canadian Forestry, micropropagation through cell, tissue and organ culture, the eventual transfer of genes, and the production of isogenic pure lines promise future hope of cloning pathogen-free and resistant trees.

While progress in ovule culture and in vitro pollination and fertilization of tree species is less noteworthy than in various annual crops, there is hope that eventually these techniques will give rise to seeds unobtainable in vivo. It is hoped, however, that the experience with other crops will make possible ovule culture and embryo rescue in a range of tree species. In Canada, and elsewhere, embryo inviability has been a barrier to crossing and hybridization among species of pine, Douglas-fir and spruce. Research to isolate early embryos is intended to avert early collapse and seed lethality caused by endosperm abortion.

Some progress is reported on somatic embryogenesis in liquid suspension or solid media of several species of alder (Biota orientalis), English holly (Ilex sp .), and rubber trees (Hevea brasilienss). In vitro propagation of forest trees is still at-an early stage of development, though a considerably increased investment of effort is evident over the past 10 years. Progress can

84

now be seen in induced rooting of adventitious shoots from both hardwoods and conifers. The progress made in potato and other root crops in producing disease-free cuitivars from meristem culture offers encouragement to forest research workers seeking similar objectives,

Conventional breeding has made some, although not spectacular, progress in generatingdisease-resistanL genotypes. Modest encouragement may be derived from suspendedcultures in media containing filtrates from specific pathogens. Resistant calli are selected for plant regeneration.

Isogenic pure lines are not attainable throughsexual reproduction and inbreeding to producehomozygosity requires too maniy generations of inbreeding. Some success in generating haploidplantlets from both angiosperms and gymnospermsis reportea by forest research workers in Canada.

POLICY AND PUBLIC OPINION

Only very recently has it begun to dawn uponCanadians, particularly upon Canadian journalists, that economic development depends upon environmental protection. Our environment is our inherited wealth; our most valuableriches are earth's resources. When we despoil

forests for their timber wae deplete the soil and cause it to erode. Eroded and depletedsoil debases our agricultural potential. A debased agriculture exacerbates poverty, hungerand malnutrition, particularly among the poorest nations, and threatens the future economic prosperity of even the richer countries. As the environment is degraded and polluted the whole world is increasinglyimpoverished. Mankind has yet to learn to live by the knowledge that air, water, forests and other natural resources are not free for all. They are vital and valuable; their depredation bears a high price that we and all future generations will some day have to pay.

Those of us who were privileged to be members of the Brundtland Commission's Advisory Panel on Food Security, Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment were at pains to emphasize that food security depends upon a sustainable and productive resource base; that forests and their ecosystems constitute a fundamental factor of stauility. Their destruction canexert serious long-term effects on the biosphere, the ecology and on the human, animaland plant life they support. Indiscriminate removal of vegetative cover may well contribute to the increasing frequency of drought conditions over much of Africa.

The causes of deforestation in the Third World

85

are many and complex. They include the heavy and ever-growing demand for fuelwood as populations increase; unregulated expansion of agriculture and livestock production; uncontrolled timber exploitation and, in almost all nations, an utter lack of any policy framework governing land use and forest management. In various areas of Africa, Asia eod Latin America shifting cultivation inflicts greater damage to forest resources than the harvesting of wood for fuel. Deforestation and the consequent destabilization of upland watersheds causes both serious flooding and soil erosion. Regrettably, disaster and degradation consequent upon deforestation are most iecognized retrospectively and in hindsight, often too late for preventive action.

Afforestation, reforestation and forest management are all severely hampered by inadequate investment in and facilities for research: research to determine land capacity and conservative land utilization; research on tree genetics, breeding and silviculture; research on alternative agroforestry systems. Perhaps the neglect is in part psychological, a sense that only foresters who have inherited Methuselah's genes will live to see the benefits of their labours. Perhaps, subc-nsciously, we share Joyce Kilmer and Oscar Rasbach's belief that only God can make a tree

and therefore man's plant-breeding genius is better devoted to rice, wheat, oats and barley.

Support for forestry research was included in IDRC's Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Program from its earliest inception. Gilles Lessard, who 1-d the forestry program for most of the 16 years, had to work much harder than his Crop Science colleagues to find willing and able recipients. It is an immense credit to Gilles Lessard and his colleagues that the Centre has supported roughly 150 projects since the program started early in 1972. It is noteworthy that during the first 10 years most forestry projects were in Africa where trained forestry research scientists are indeed a rare breed. In almost all countries university departments of forestry are far fewer than departments of agriculture. Among the former French colonies of West Africa there is not a single university department of forestry. Notwithstanding that, in value, exports of forest products from Canada significantly exceed agricultural exports; within Canadian universities there are 12 faculties of agriculture and 7 faculties of forestry.

Despite this litany of woe, one must be encouraged by the sense of dedication evident in the -Strategy Meeting on Tropical Forests­held in early July at Bellagio sponsored by several international agencies, the World

86

Resources Institute, and the Rockefeller Foundation. In its final statement the assembled group of donors pointed to the rate of forest destruction and to the fact that developing countries' imports of forest products exceed $10 B annually. Specifically discussed was support for the Tropical Forest Acticn Plan (TFAP), which, it is proposed,should double from $500 M in 1984 to $1.0 B in 1988. The Action Plan emphasizes the economic and social costs of inaction; the need for governments to prescribe policies and strategies for conservation and sustainable resource management; that the wealthier nations must invest more in protecting and less in destroying tropical forests and other natural ecosystems. The meeting specifically recommended the strengthening of research, and examination of the feasibility of creating a Consultative Group for International Forestry(CGIF) comparable in scope and purpose to the CGIAR. An inter.-ational task 'orce will prepare recommendations for financial support,policy and institutional initiatives towards this end.

DONORS AND THEIR SUPPORT

In preparing this presentation the advice and assistance of other donor agencies was

canvassed. Several generously took time and trouble to record past and present prioritiesand programs of support for forestry in the Third World. The volume of literature far exceeds the limits of this paper ard therefore the responses as received are now lodged with ICRAF's librarian.

Canada

Canada's support for forestry is channelled mainly through CIDA, IDRC and a number of NGOs. In addition, the Canadian ForestryService (CFS) maintains international technical liaisons, whicn include the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) and the North American Forestry Commission.

CIDA's program. Over the past 20 years CIDA as invested more than $650 M in forestry,roughly 60% to projects related to sustainable production, 40% to effective extraction, processing and use of forest products. The present CIDA allocation to forestry is roughly$70 M, approximately 32% being devoted to institutional support, 31% to industrial forestry, 20% to forest and land-use management, and 14% to wood for energy. CIDA's support for forestry has increased at about l0/ per annum since it began in 1968, a

87

rate of annual growth expected to contin',e well into the next decade. Recent policy statements suggest that highest sectoral priority will be assigned to: (1) rural forestry and watershed management; (2) wood and energy; (3) conservation of tropical systems; and (4) education and training. Somewhat lower rates of increased investment in industrial forestry are expected.

In the light of the recommendations recorded in a recent report of the Canadian Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs and Aid, particular emphasis will be given to human resource development. Giv.n :j, comparative scarcity of people employed in s~r-ategic planning, in resource management and in virtually all facets cf research related to forestry, additional attention to and stimulation of human resource development is indeed timely.

In addition to its support for ICRAF and other international programs, in its global perspective CIDA is a prominent participant in the newly created Tropical Forest Action Plan, which seeks to co-ordinate forestry assistance programs most effectively in:

--

-

land use management; industrial development; energy application; conservation;

88

- institutional improvement.

One of the useful products of the TFAP is a compendium that briefly describes forestry projects in about 113 countries and with several regional organizations, reported and supported by some 23 multilateral and bilateral donor agencies. Unfortunately the publication gives no indication of total value of annual investment either by donor or recipient. Furthermore, several of the countries listed would not be conventionally classified as tropical. A complementary TFAP publication suggests that present annual bilateral and multilateral donor investment in forestry projects in 53 tropical countries amounts to about $800 M. The same publication estimates requirements in these same countries at $8 B over the next five years.

IDRC's program. In 1970, the year that IDRC came into existence, it was calculated that in the Magnreb countries of North Africa approximately 100,000 hectares of land were turning into desert because of deforestation and over-grazing. We were also aware that of the estimated 3 B cubic metres of wood harvested in Africa, at least 90% was consumed as firewood and charcoal and that of the area classified as forest, over 9/ consisted of various types of bush cover, less than 3% being classified as dense forest.

Having earlier worked with people in the Sahelian coun'ries, it was evident that their inhabitants !t:re among the most stressed and at greatest risk. It was therefore agreed and approved by IDRC's Board of Governors at itsfirst meeting that IDRC's first priority would be for the semi-arid tropics of Africa. This decision was taken in 1971 before the devastating droughts of the mid-1970s drew the world's attention to the precarious state in which Sahelian people exist.

An early survey revealed that rural women in the Sahel devote 10 hours of their dailylabours to fetching fuelwood and water, and to pounding grain. In consequence, over the past15 years throughout semi-arid Africa IDRC has given significant support to social forestry, to the development of handpumps, and to research on rural grain milling. During its first 10 years, close to 30% of all IDRC's forestry projects were in semi-arid Africa. Upto the end of 1976, of a total of 23 social forestry projects supported, 15 were in semi-arid Africa and two others in the Middle East.

The pattern of growth in IDRC's forestry program is illustrated by the fact that during 1974 the Centre approved six projects at a total cost of $1.1 M equivalent, an average of $176,000/project. In 1986 21 projects were

approved at a total cost of $3.9 M, an averageof $188,000/project It is interesting that in constant dollars the average cost per projectin 1986 was considerably less than in 1974.

Indicative of the need for long-termcommitments to forestry projects, one of the first projects approved by IDRC in 1972 was in Senegal for the silviculture of Acacia senegal to produce Gum Arabic. Late in 0I RCs Board approved a pastoral forestry management project, also at Mbidi in Senegal, to test anintegrated management system associating food crops and the production of Acacia senegal and Acacia raddiana for gum and fodd-er.

In recent ydars the IDRC program has spread and diversified over all developing continents, program specialists in forestry research being now based in Singapore for Southeast Asia,Delhi for South Asia, Nairobi for eastern and southern Africa, Dakar for west and north Africa, and in Bogota for the Caribbean and Latin America. Nevertheless, among the more gratifying consequences has been the stimulation of greater co-operation among foresters in semi-arid Africa and thefoundation of a germplasm bank in Zimbabwe to serve their individual and collective needs.

89

The United States of America

USAID. In a comprehensive report on Conservina Tropical Forests in Developing Countries submitted to the Congress of the United States in February 1987, USAID describes its support for tropical forestry. Briefly the following are the principal technical areas and the proportions as percentages of the total funds allocated to each of them.

Percent

Agroforestry - stable and productive farming systems on cleaTed or degraded land 21

Sustainable forest practices 21 Conservation of forest watersheds 13 Increased awareness of the value of

tropical forests 13 Forest utilization and environmental

protection 12 Traditional crop practices 09 Conservation of tropical forests 07 Conservation of biological diversity 04

The report also lists various functional areas to which additional funds are allocated. As of 1986 USAID was supporting 100 forestry projects; 19 new projects are planned and 36 are reported as completed. The report states

that of the total life cost of projects the proportion allocated to forestry is $491 M; that current annual funding for forestry is $53 M; and the projected level for 1988 is $65 M. Annual levels for the fiscal years 1984 and 1985 were each approximately $50 M. USAID expects to maintain support for tropical forestry at about $65 M annually for the foreseeable future.

The budget for forestry activities in 1987 is rougily $54 M, of which roughly 47% is devoted to Asia and the Far East, 31% to Latin America and the Caribbean and 15% to Africa. By sector 39% goes to institution building, 24/o to fuelwoodd and energy, and 19% to forest conservation.

Referring to its institution building, USAID gives weight to its concern for forestry research and education. In the matter of conservation it emphasizes efforts to decrease deforestation, desertification, land degradation, loss of biological diversity and promotes land-use planning and sustained multiple-use management. In its support for fuelwood projects it describes how the forestry/agriculture interface has been the focus of many successful interventions.

The report to Congress is recommended reading as much for its underlying philosophy as for

90

the specific statements of support for tropical forestry.

Rockefeller Foundation. The RF support of forestry and agroforestry is said to be increasing and is predicted to level off at about $1 M/annum by 1988.

Ford Foundation. FF support for social forestry, agroforestry and related activities is described in detail in a report dated January 1987, a copy of which is with ICRAF's library.

The program covers a broad spectrum of activities in support of universities and rural development projects, the latter implemented by a variety of government, iion-government and development agcticies. The report begins with a review of the processes and consequences of deforestation and land degradation. It then addresses possible interventions and the political dimensions of land management. The interventions include social forestry, its essential modalities and constraints, and agroforestry, which is described as a set of land-use technologies designed to improve the productivity of land resources, and defined to encompass any cropping system that incorporates trees or other woody perennials in spatial or temporai proximity to annual crops or livestock.

The FF investments by region from 1982 through 1986 are quoted as:

$ M

Asia 6 .7 Africa & Middle East 1 .6 Latin America & the Caribbean 1 .8

TOTAL 10.1

FF classifies its activities in land management under five headings:

- Strengthening NGOs - Reorientation of government

bureaucracies - Management of common property resources - Support for human rights and social

justice - Research and information dissemination

A survey of 82 FF forestry projects indicated 25% with NGOs, 24% with education and research institutes, and l8/ with government agencies.The report states that support for the land management program -has grown dramatically over the last several years'. Before 1980 cumulative expenditures totalled $484,000; since 1980 they exceed $16 M and continue in excess of $3 M per annum.

91

European Economic Community (EEC)

EEC assistance to forestry is approximately $20 M/yr in support of some 40 major projects. Of the total, 54% is invested in Africa, 35% in Asia and the Pacific and ll% in Latin America and the Caribbean. [y sector, the lion's share (59%) goes to forestry and land use, forest industries receiving 21% and fuelwood and energy ll%.

The EEC report reveals that its support is largely for forestry components of integrated rural development projects, the main aim being to provide fuelwood, structural materials and fodder for livestock, together with soil and water conservation and general environmental protection. The industrial development sector includes traditional plantations for timber and other commercial products. Financing of fuelwood activities forms part of a larger, more comprehensive program in energy generation and utilization. Recent EEC policy papers emphasize the importance of forestry in rural development and predict a continuing increasing investment in this sector.

The United Kingdom

The Overseas Development AdmiTlistration (ODA) of the United Kingdom currently supports

forestry activities in 20 countries: 8 in Africa, 7 in Asia and the Pacific, and 5 in the Caribbean and Latin America. All activities are directed to forest regeneration, forest management or conservation, approximately 55% being primarily social/community forestry and 45% industrial forestry. Almost all projects have a substantial research component and most include training. ODA support for forestry has more than doubled in the past 5 years.

Ireland

Support for industrial forestry and forest product utilization have not featured in Irish development projects. The Government of Ireland is, however, supporting three projects in social forestry, one each in Lesotho, Sudan and Tanzania, the first being support for a seedling nursery for citrus, prunus and other fruit-bearing species. It is stated that 'the importance of trees ... is increasingly recognized- and more forestry components will be included in the future aid program.

The Federal Republic of Germany

The FRG agencies responsible provided several interesting and comprehensive publications all now deposited with the ICRAF library. Of

92

particular interest is the GTZ brochure "Forestry and the Development of Rural Areas in Third World Countries-. The principal objectives of the FRG program are development and improved use of tropical forest resources to support economic and social progress-, particularly of rural populations. Particular emphasis is given to the conservation of ecologically valuable areas with special priority upon conservation of tropical rain forests. Africa is a priority continent, particularly those regions prone to desertification. Forestry development in mountain areas is also strongly supported.

Total investment in forestry activities appears to amount to approximately $34 M which, if the literature is correctly understood, represents about 10% of technical co--operation in the agriculture and rural development sector. Of the $34 M, 52% goes to Africa, 27.5% to Asia and the Pacific, and 14/ to Latin America and the Caribbean and 6.5% to the Near East.

fhe information received states that while the FRG's total ODA is increasing at an annual rate of only 2-4%, disbursements in the forestry sector are rising at betwee, 10 and 15% annually. In 1984 the combined investment for technical co-operation and financial co-operation in forestry amounted to $23 M and by 1986 this had increased to $39 M. It is

assumed that this trend will continue and that the combined technical and financial components to forest-y in 1988 will amount to '45 M.

France

In 1986 French aid to developing countries for forestry programs and projects amounted to $33.5 M equally apportioned among research, training, and extension/development projects. This figure includes only bilateral aid.

In the areaof research, the beneficiaries are 10 countries in Africa and Brazil, all of whichhave permanent forestry research programs. A variety of projects and other time-limited activities are carried out in Latin America and Southeast Asia.

Aid for training in forestry goes to 20 countries, mainly in Africa.

Extension/development projects are located in two zones: the humid tropical zone and the drytropical zone. In the humid tropical zone the recipients are Burundi, the Central African Republic, :ote d' Ivoire, Cabon, Haiti, Malagasy, Rwanda, Vanuatu and Zaire. In the dry tropical zone there are about 40 forestry development projects, some of which are part of the integrated Rural Development Programme.

93

The aid recipients in this zone are Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Mali, Niger, Sahel and Senegal.

Norway

The Norwegian Ministry of Development Cooperation supports projects in forest industries, catchment forestry, training and research in Tanzania, training and research in Zimbabwe and fuelwood plantations admins.ered in Malawi and SADOC. New projects in -,stern and southern Africa in catchment and village forestry are being planned. In addition forestry, particularly village forestry, is a component of rural development prGgrams in Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and Sri Lanka. Total bilateral support for forestry is NK40 M, roughly equal to US$5.8 M. Norway also channels US$4.0 M through FAQ for support of forestry projects in Bhutan, Bolivia and Nepal.

The forestry sector is expected to increasp in prominence during the corning years, particular attention being given to catchment and village forestry and to fuelwood.

Sweden

Our Swedish colleagues inform us that during the recent past roughly $2.3 M (about 7% of total budget) has been devoted to environmental research, of which forestry has been a minor component. In the present year the Swedish government has allocated $15 M to environmental research, roughly 50/ of which will be invested in forestry projects specifically for studies of deforestation and desertification. It is anticipated that Swedish investment in forestry research in the Third World will be increased considerably in the future, special emphasis being upon total land use, agroforestry and social forestry.

Switzerland

Forestry was a minor component of the Swiss Development Corporation (SDC) program until 1975, at which time there were only six projects at a total budgeted cost of SFr 5 M. During the periods 1976-1980 and 1981-1985 respectively 20 and 11 new projects were added. At present SDC supports 33 forestry projects and 7 in which forestry is a component of rural development. The recent average annual investment is SFr 25 M, representing about 80/ of total bilateral assistance.

94

The budget for forestry in 1987 is SFr 80 M, 60% in Africa, 25% in Latin America aid 15% Asia.

in

The sectoral allc-ations are:

Rural afforestation Institution building (largely education & training) Forest management (divided between dindustrial and conservation

45%

40%

15%

Rural afforestation includes establishment of woodlots, shelterbelts and agroforestry systems. Ecological priorities are semi-arid and mountainous regions.

The World Bank (IBRD)

An IBRD review paper describes past experience with forestry projects between 1977 and 1986. It refers to the difficulty of definingcriteria by which to judge overall performance, whether the right trees were grown in the rightplace, and who has benefitted from the projectsfinanced. It emphasizes that Forestry requires sustained support if meaningful conclusions are to be drawn. It will be several years before sufficient evaluation data are accumulated to determine the -longer-term imp3ct- of social forestry investments.

The report lists eight countries in which forestry has been suDported for more than a decade and nine for between 5 and 10 years. Of these 17, 10 are in Africa and 7 in Asia. Ovcr the oast decade Bank forestry lending averages less than 5% of total lending to agriculture;it was less than 2% in 1986. Considering the role of trees in stabilizing soil and water upon which agriculture depends, it is arguablethat Bank investment in forestry should increase, not decrease.

During 1967-1976, 95% of the Bank's $115 M investment was en industrial forestry, incl!uding logging, sawmills and plywood. Between 1977 and 1986 the total loans Increased to $1.3 B, of which 60% was for 69 social forestry, fuelwood and watershed protection projects.

The approximate percent proportions were as follows:

Percent Percent

Social forestry 28 Watershed protection 02 Forestry in agriculture and

ru;al development 42 Logging and industrial plantations 20

Sawmills and plywood 08

95

The paper lists 10 key issues, inadequacies, defects and deficiencies in Bank-supported forestry projects. These include inadequate attention to sociological aspects, and poor advance land-use planning resulting in ecological degradation.

It describes the measures taken to redress these inadequacies in terms of: the influence of forestry on food production, economic analysis, sociological issues, cost recovery, institutional weaknesses, research, fuelwood, and land settlement.

The paper gives estimated rates of return from various categories of projects.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

IFAD reports that since its inception 19 of its projects (roughly 9% of total) contain a forestry component. The total cost of the forestry components is estimated at $63 M, IFAD's share teing approximately $13.1 M. Of the projects referred to 7 were in Africa, 4 in Asia, 6 ir Latin America and 2 in the Near East.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

From UNDP a long computer print-out lists by title all forestry projects financed over the past 25 years. Briefly, the data indicates the following allocations:

Tctal ($M US) No of Projects

Africa 84.1 184 Asia and the Pacific 122.1 202

Arab States Europe

19.98.9

5941

Latin America and the Caribbean 73.5 98

GRAND TOTAL 288.8 591

Since only simple titles are provided it is difficult accurately to analyze allocations by sub-sector. Other print-outs suggest that in addition, some $16.5 M has been invested in 38 forest ind!stry projects, $6.6 M in 3 cartography projects, $27.3 M in 30 land and water projects, and $1.1 M in one environmental health project.

96

Asian Development Bank

Between 1977 and the end of 1986, ADB providedloan financing for 14 projects in 10 Asian countries for a total of $211 M. The loans were in the following percentage proportions.

Percent

Timber extraction, sawmilling, processing 31

Plantation establishment 08 Fuelwood plantation/community forestry 34

Commercial plantation 12 Watershed management: vocational training 13

Forest industries/paper mill 02

Proposed projects call for loan f4 nancing of $298 M. In addition, over the pa-- Jecade, ADB has invested $11 M in 34 technical assistanceprojects, and $5 M in forestry as a component of 9 other projects.

ADB is composing an updated Forestry Sector Policy paper including separate studies on forestry and forest industries to determine the Bank's opportunities for investment in forestryand forest industries.

Summary of Donor Support

It is difficult if not impossible to make an accurate assessment of total amounts allocated and overall donor investment trends in forestry programs. Some donors' support for forestry is included in broader rural development programsand projects, the cost of the forestry component being not readily segregated. In general, however, an increased awareness of the importance of forestry is evident among donors and, in aggregate, support for forestry and agroforestry appears to be growing at a faster rate than overall support for international development. This trend must surely be a source of encouragement to ICRAF both in terms of the futurre support it may anticipate and the influence the Council has clearly exerted upondonors' poicies and priorities.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND SOCIAL EQUITY

ICRAF's opportunities appear almost limitless.In the light of other international research centre experience, the Council's options will be many and its choices difficult. Demand will inevitably exceed supply. Planned allo'2ations will be tensed and stressed by the competitivepriorities of those whom the Council see-s to serve and those who finance its activities.

97

Its path is the more precarious in consequence of the complex and diverse factors which condition agroforestry systems.

The integration of forestry with farming, of sustainable systems of silviculture with crop cultivation, animal husbandry, land and water management demands strategic planning and resource management of immense diversity and complexity. Complementary to the components of breeding, selection, cultivation and husbandry, reliable data bases are needed to feed complex computer models if agroforestry is to be comprehensively conceived and controlled.

There is, however, a potential pitfall to be anticipated and avoided. Those of us trained in the natural and physical sciences tend to think more of mathematically immaculate methodologies and innovative technologies and less of people. The impersonal vocabularies of economics, politics and industrial aoministration speak not of people but of human resources, numerical statistics to be crunched into computers along with such others as investment and working capital, taxes, tariffs and crop yields.

The recent Bellagio meeting pointed out that uncontrolled deforestation threatens the livelihood of 200 M people; that more than 1 billion people are suffering from shortages of

fuelwood. At one of its earliest meetings ICRAF's Doard of Trustees declared as a high priority: -The identification of socio-economic constraints to the implementation of agroforestry systems-. The Asian Farming Systems Research Network, controlled and coordinated by IRRI, in which 12 Asian nations cooperate, clearly demonstrates the centrality of people, the critical influence of human, social and cultural attitudes to the acceptancE and adoption of technological change.

Amrong the basic principles for food and environmental security defined by the Food Security Advisory Panel to the Brundtland Commission the following quotation is of special significance:

Policies adopted by international and donor agencies, by national and local governments must be consistent with promoting people's participation in the formulation and implementation of development plans and of the advancement of a people-based economic ecology movement.

In other words, those who pay the piper should not aways call the tune.

Agroforestry is devoted to the study and conservative management of mankind's most

98

precious inherited resource, its productiveland. Destruction of that land and the biological systems it supports robs many poorpeople of their birthright. The extent to which ICRAF succeeds in reversing the degradation caused by human avarice, Ignorance, stupidity and oppression of the poor will influence immensely the inheritance and qualityof life of many future generations. It is an exciting and exacting challenge. Those who return in 1998 for the Council's coming-of-age celebrations will, I am sure, be more than satisfied that the challenge was well met.

99