The challenge of HIV/AIDS: Where does agroforestry fit in? - World ...

92World Agroforestry into the Futuresequestration projects, and the implicationsof alternative mechanisms for exploitingthis potential. Finally, we provide relevantinformation to a variety of stakeholders atinternational, national and local levels.Conclusions and implicationsfor future research anddevelopmentEnvironmental governance shapes thecontext in which farmers make decisionsabout where and when to invest time andresources in planting and managing trees.Farmers are encouraged to protect existingvegetation and invest in new agroforestrysystems when they have secure rights tothe products generated by the trees, whenthere are certain markets for those products,and when they capture value from thepositive environmental services that theirtrees generate. Land and tree tenure, forestclassification, conservation policies, environmentalservice mechanisms and globalenvironmental agreements are componentsof environmental governance that affectthose incentives through various pathways.They are also policy levers that are used bygovernments to advance forest conservation,environmental protection, economicgrowth and other national objectives.Most developing countries have had regimesof environmental governance thatstressed forest conservation by centralagencies without due regard for the valueof the environmental services produced bythose forests, the performance of the regulatoryagencies or the negative impacts offorestry laws on farmers’ incentives to practiceagroforestry. Changes in environmentalgovernance are unfolding in many developingcountries, with some decentralizationof governance institutions and moreemphasis on the environmental effects ofland use outside of forests. In many cases,the result is a very uncertain and unevenpolicy terrain, particularly regarding therelatively new discipline of agroforestry.The review presented in this paper suggeststhat additional research is needed on thefollowing:• The landscape and watershed level effectsof different types of property rightsin farm areas and different configurationsof property rights in non-farmareas. Suyanto et al. (2005) has takenthis approach to fire management inSumatra; Swallow et al. (2001) outlinea similar approach for watershed management;and Ashley et al. (2005) dothe same thing for protected area landscapes.• Appropriate negotiation platforms formulti-functional landscapes. van Noodwijket al. (2001) have made majorcontributions to this with their work onnegotiation support systems.• The potential for environmental servicemechanisms that enhance the supply ofenvironmental services and the welfareof smallholder agroforesters in multifunctionallandscapes. The Centre is graduallyexpanding work on environmental servicemechanisms from specific locationsin Southeast Asia to key locations in LatinAmerica and South Asia.• The ways that global environmentalagreements can be modified or implementedto maximize the potential foragroforestry to synergize the objectivesof the agreements with that of reducingpoverty.AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank Regina Birnerand Tom Tomich for constructive commentson a previous version of this chapter.ReferencesAgrawal, A. and E. Ostrom 2001. Collectiveaction, property rights and devolution offorest and protected area management.In: Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox and M. diGregoria (eds), Collective Action, PropertyRights and Devolution of NaturalResource Management, Proceedings ofan International Conference 21–25 June1999, Puerto Azul, the Philippines. DeutscheStiftung für Internationale Entwicklung,Feldafing, Germany.Ashley, R., D. Russell and B. Swallow 2005.The policy terrain in protected area landscapes:challenges for agroforestry inintegrated landscape conservation. Biodiversityand Conservation (in press).ASB (2001). ASB Policy Brief 2: Putting Community-BasedForest Management on theMap. Alternatives to Slash and Burn Program,World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi,Kenya.Barrow, E. and W. Mlenge 2003. Trees as keyto pastoral risk management in semi-aridlandscapes in Shinyanga, Tanzania andTurkana, Kenya. Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Rural Livelihoods,Forests and Biodiversity 19–23May, Bonn, Germany. Centre for InternationalForestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.Bruce, J.W. 1989. Rapid Appraisal of Tree andLand Tenure. Community Forestry Note5. Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations. Available online athttp://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/006/T7540E/T7540E01.htmCernea, M.M. and K. Schmidt-Soltau 2003. Biodiversityconservation versus populationresettlement: risks to nature and risks topeople. Paper presented at the InternationalConference on Rural Livelihoods,Forests and Biodiversity 19–23 May,Bonn, Germany.