Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

STRUCTURED STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT LEADS TO DEVELOPMENT OF MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE AGROFORESTRY OPTIONS

  • EMILIE SMITH DUMONT (a1) (a2), SUBIRA BONHOMME (a1), TIMOTHY F. PAGELLA (a2) and FERGUS LLOYD SINCLAIR (a1) (a2)
Abstract
SUMMARY

There is a lot of interest in the contribution that agroforestry can make to reverse land degradation and create resilient multifunctional landscapes that provide a range of socio-economic benefits. The agroforestry research agenda has been characterized by approaches that promote a few priority tree species, within a restricted set of technological packages. These have often not spread widely beyond project sites, because they fail to take account of fine scale variation in farmer circumstances. New methods are needed to generate diverse sets of agroforestry options that can reconcile production and conservation objectives and embrace varying local conditions across large scaling domains. Here, we document a novel approach that couples local knowledge acquisition with structured stakeholder engagement to build an inclusive way of designing agroforestry options. We applied this approach in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where armed conflict, erratic governance and poverty have resulted in severe pressure on forests in the Virunga National Park, a global biodiversity hotspot. Around the park, natural resources and land are severely degraded, whereas most reforestation interventions have consisted of exotic monocultures dominated by Eucalyptus species grown as energy or timber woodlots mainly by male farmers with sufficient land to allocate some exclusively to trees. We found that structured stakeholder engagement led to a quick identification of a much greater diversity of trees (more than 70 species) to be recommended for use within varied field, farm and landscape niches, serving the interests of a much greater diversity of people, including women and marginalized groups. The process also identified key interventions to improve the enabling environment required to scale up the adoption of agroforestry. These included improving access to quality tree planting material, capacity strengthening within the largely non-governmental extension system, and collective action to support value capture from agroforestry products, through processing and market interventions. Integrating local and global scientific knowledge, coupled with facilitating broad-based stakeholder participation, resulted in shifting from reliance on a few priority tree species to promoting tree diversity across the Virunga landscape that could underpin more productive and resilient livelihoods. The approach is relevant for scaling up agroforestry more generally.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      STRUCTURED STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT LEADS TO DEVELOPMENT OF MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE AGROFORESTRY OPTIONS
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      STRUCTURED STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT LEADS TO DEVELOPMENT OF MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE AGROFORESTRY OPTIONS
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      STRUCTURED STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT LEADS TO DEVELOPMENT OF MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE AGROFORESTRY OPTIONS
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
§Corresponding author. Email: e.smith@cgiar.org
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

R. Ashley , D. Russell and B. Swallow (2006). The policy terrain in protected area landscapes: Challenges for agroforestry in integrated landscape conservation. Biodiversity & Conservation 15 (2):663689.

S. W. Chomba , I. Nathan , P. A. Minang and F. Sinclair (2015). Illusions of empowerment? Questioning policy and practice of community forestry in Kenya. Ecology and Society 20 (3):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07741-200302.

R. Coe , F. Sinclair and E. Barrios (2014). Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in'rather than ‘for'development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:7377.

R. DeFries , A. Hansen , B. Turner , R. Reid and J. Liu (2007). Land use change around protected areas: Management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Applications 17 (4):10311038.

S. Franzel , R. Coe , P. Cooper , F. Place and S. J. Scherr (2001). Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems 69 (1):3762.

L. A. German , B. Kidane and R. Shemdoe (2006). Social and environmental trade-offs in tree species selection: A methodology for identifying niche incompatibilities in agroforestry. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8 (4):535552.

J. Gilbert (2013). Constitutionalism, ethnicity and minority rights in Africa: A legal appraisal from the Great Lakes region. International Journal of Constitutional Law 11 (2):414437.

A. Gyau , S. Franzel , M. Chiatoh , G. Nimino and K. Owusu (2014). Collective action to improve market access for smallholder producers of agroforestry products: Key lessons learned with insights from Cameroon's experience. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:6872.

C. A. Harvey , C. Villanueva , H. Esquivel , R. Gomez , M. Ibrahim , M. Lopez , J. Martinez , D. Munoz , C. Restrepo , J. Saenz , J. Villacis and F. L. Sinclair (2011). Conservation value of dispersed tree cover threatened by pasture management. Forest Ecology and Management 261 (10):16641674. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112710006638 .

T. S. Jayne , J. Chamberlain and D. D. Headey (2014). Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in Africa: A synthesis. Food Policy 48:117.

E. Kiptot and S. Franzel (2012). Gender and agroforestry in Africa: A review of women's participation. Agroforestry Systems 84 (1):3558.

J. Lillesø , L. Graudal , S. Moestrup , E.D. Kjær , R. Kindt , A. Mbora , I. Dawson , J. Muriuki , A. Ræbild and R. Jamnadass (2011). Innovation in input supply systems in smallholder agroforestry: Seed sources, supply chains and support systems. Agroforestry Systems 83 (3):347359.

C. Mbow , M. van Noordwijk , R. Prabhu and T. Simons (2014). Knowledge gaps and research needs concerning agroforestry's contribution to sustainable development goals in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:162170.

S. S. Meijer , D. Catacutan , O. C. Ajayi , G. W. Sileshi and M. Nieuwenhuis (2015). The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 13 (1):4054.

J. Nyaga , E. Barrios , C. W. Muthuri , I. Öborn , V. Matiru and F. L. Sinclair (2015). Evaluating factors influencing heterogeneity in agroforestry adoption and practices within smallholder farms in Rift Valley, Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 212:106118.

B. I. Nyoka , S. A. Mng'omba , F. K. Akinnifesi , O. C. Ajayi , G. Sileshi and R. Jamnadass (2011). Agroforestry tree seed production and supply systems in Malawi. Small-Scale Forestry 10 (4):419434.

A. J. Plumptre , T. R. Davenport , M. Behangana , R. Kityo , G. Eilu , P. Ssegawa and D. Moyer (2007). The biodiversity of the Albertine Rift. Biological Conservation 134 (2):178194.

J. Pollini (2009). Agroforestry and the search for alternatives to slash-and-burn cultivation: From technological optimism to a political economy of deforestation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 133 (1):4860.

J. Raintree (1987). The state of the art of agroforestry diagnosis and design. Agroforestry Systems 5:219250

B. Reubens , C. Moeremans , J. Poesen , J. Nyssen , S. Tewoldeberhan , S. Franzel and B. Muys (2011). Tree species selection for land rehabilitation in Ethiopia: From fragmented knowledge to an integrated multi-criteria decision approach. Agroforestry Systems 82 (3):303330.

D. Russell and S. Franzel (2004). Trees of prosperity: Agroforestry, markets and the African smallholder. In New Vistas in Agroforestry, 345355. Springer.

F. L. Sinclair (1999). A general classification of agroforestry practice. Agroforestry Systems 46 (2):161180.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Experimental Agriculture
  • ISSN: 0014-4797
  • EISSN: 1469-4441
  • URL: /core/journals/experimental-agriculture
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 47
Total number of PDF views: 574 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 712 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 30th January 2017 - 23rd May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.