Agroforestry Good choices E.g. 1: oil palm in Brazil Mono-crop vs Diversity Less or more? Conventional oil palm Mono-crop system Oil palm + agroforestry experiment, Year 5, Tomé Açu, Pará, Brazil. Photo: Debora Castellani Andrew Miccolis, ICRAF Brazil
Oil palm-based Agroforestry Systems in Tome-Acu 2008 To test sustainability of diversified oil palm production
Performance Indicators Productivity indicators Land Equivalent Ratio Net present value Returns to Labour Years to Positive Cash flow Environmental indicators N-leaching control Nutrient stocks Carbon stock Erosion control Surface runoff control Water Use Efficiency
Economic performance indicators Systems NPV (Rp. ha -1 ) Returns to labour (Rp. persondays v -1 ) Years of positive cash flow (#) in a 25 year cycle LER Oil palm 53,641,039 80,494 20 1.00 + Cacao 68,818,497 v 64,324 v 20 v 1.18 + Rubber 5,126,306 43,609 12 1.21 + Mucuna 53,230,981 80,242 20 1.01 + Groundnut 63,528,614 78,904 23 1.16 + Cassava 59,122,107 74,788 23 1.05 All scenarios are profitable over a 25 year cycle, however, there is a large difference between the performance of rubber and all other scenarios. The Land Equivalence Ratio (LER) indicate the opportunity for land sparing through mixed cropping.
Net present value (Mln. Rp.) Profitability 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 - (10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (20)
Oil palm yields : agroforestry outperforms monocrop systems (% above avg. monocrop yields at same age) 14,0 12,0 * 99% 49% Produção do Dendê (ton/hectare) t/ha (FFB) PROJETO SAF DENDÊ Produtividade de Dendê 10,0 8,0 6,0 4,0 2,0 98% 71% 125% 149% * 27% 14% ) Oil palm agroforestry Plot 1 (81 pl/ha) Oil palm agroforestry Plot 2 (99 pl/ha) Monocrop oil palm* (considering 99 pl/ha) 0,0 Densidade: UD1: 81 pl/hectare UD2 e Conv: 99 plantas/hectare 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year 4 (2011) Year 5 (2012) Year 6 (2013) Year 7 (2014) Resultado esperado *Average yields at the same age in the same region according to Perez et al. 2007 Viabilidade de extrac a o de o leo de dende no Estado do Para. Vic osa, UFV. 2007. http://portal.mda.gov.br/portal/saf/arquivos/view/biodisel/18_-_dende.pdf Source: adapted from Castellani et al 2014, Internal Report
Land equivalence ratios tell a whole new story about what we should invest in Teak as monoculture is hardly ever fertilized, as the discounted future benefit isn t worth it. Maize is hardly ever not fertilized Intercropping maize and teak (with best spacing + pruning + thinning) can get LER values up to 2.0. LER = 1.4 + 0.5 = 1.9
In the Sahel, just add water Infiltration and groundwater recharge relative to canopy cover Source: Ilstedt et al. 2016
Economic valuation of ecosystem services in three agroforestry systems in SSA ( Part of the TEEB for Agriculture & Food project ): Moderate and heavy shade cocoa AF in Ghana Semi-forest and home-garden coffee in Ethiopia Ngitili (rotational grazing exclosures) in Tanzania Food security and household resilience Contributions to national economy (GDP, exports, etc.) and livelihoods Potential for fostering REDD+ payments Changes in EGS under scenarios analysis E.g. 2: coffee agroforestry provisioning services in Ethiopia
Coffee agroforestry (Ethiopia): choices hugely affect provisioning services Yields (kg/ha) Monetary Values ($/ha) 600 $1,200 500 400 $1,000 $800 Coffee Food and other crops 300 200 $600 $400 Timber + Poles Energy (Wood fuel, charcoal) Honey 100 0 Smallholder coffee (average) Semi-forest coffee Garden coffee Forest Coffee Plantation coffee Large variation in yields within and between systems $200 $0 Semi-forest coffee Homegarden coffee Maize Monocrop NTFP (medicines, fodder, etc.) Semi-forest coffee more specialized, garden coffee more diversified
Changes in Ecosystem Services Values for different scenarios in coffee Agroforestry in Ethiopia Scenario 1 (Coffee agroforestry to maize monocrops) Scenario 2 (Monocrops to coffee agroforestry w/enhanced shade (minimum of 60%)
An overview of ecosystem services for multiple transition scenarios for coffee in Ethiopia Valuation allows values to become visible at least in agroforestry, trade-offs in productivity (if any) are over compensated by trade-ups in other values From forest to coffee From coffee AF to maize systems From coffee AF to heavyshade coffee AF Unfortunately not enough valuation studies yet!
But, still enough evidence to show we can
Win more, lose less How valuation of agroforestry s environmental services could shift co-investment in the future of agricultural landscape Ravi Prabhu, Meine van Noordwijk, Andrew Miccolis, Florence Bernard, Peter Minang, Ni matul Khasanah, Dienke Stomph