92<strong>World</strong> Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry <strong>in</strong>to the Futuresequestration projects, and the implications<strong>of</strong> alternative mechanisms for exploit<strong>in</strong>gthis potential. F<strong>in</strong>ally, we provide relevant<strong>in</strong>formation to a variety <strong>of</strong> stakeholders at<strong>in</strong>ternational, national and local levels.Conclusions and implicationsfor future research anddevelopmentEnvironmental governance shapes thecontext <strong>in</strong> which farmers make decisionsabout where and when to <strong>in</strong>vest time andresources <strong>in</strong> plant<strong>in</strong>g and manag<strong>in</strong>g trees.Farmers are encouraged to protect exist<strong>in</strong>gvegetation and <strong>in</strong>vest <strong>in</strong> new agr<strong>of</strong>orestrysystems when they have secure rights tothe products generated by the trees, whenthere are certa<strong>in</strong> 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 components<strong>of</strong> environmental governance that affectthose <strong>in</strong>centives through various pathways.<strong>The</strong>y are also policy levers that are used bygovernments to advance forest conservation,environmental protection, economicgrowth and other national objectives.Most develop<strong>in</strong>g countries have had regimes<strong>of</strong> environmental governance thatstressed forest conservation by centralagencies without due regard for the value<strong>of</strong> the environmental services produced bythose forests, the performance <strong>of</strong> the regulatoryagencies or the negative impacts <strong>of</strong>forestry laws on farmers’ <strong>in</strong>centives to practiceagr<strong>of</strong>orestry. Changes <strong>in</strong> environmentalgovernance are unfold<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> many develop<strong>in</strong>gcountries, with some decentralization<strong>of</strong> governance <strong>in</strong>stitutions and moreemphasis on the environmental effects <strong>of</strong>land use outside <strong>of</strong> forests. In many cases,the result is a very uncerta<strong>in</strong> and unevenpolicy terra<strong>in</strong>, particularly regard<strong>in</strong>g therelatively new discipl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> agr<strong>of</strong>orestry.<strong>The</strong> review presented <strong>in</strong> this paper suggeststhat additional research is needed on thefollow<strong>in</strong>g:• <strong>The</strong> landscape and watershed level effects<strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> property rights<strong>in</strong> farm areas and different configurations<strong>of</strong> property rights <strong>in</strong> non-farmareas. Suyanto et al. (2005) has takenthis approach to fire management <strong>in</strong>Sumatra; Swallow et al. (2001) outl<strong>in</strong>ea similar approach for watershed management;and Ashley et al. (2005) dothe same th<strong>in</strong>g 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.• <strong>The</strong> potential for environmental servicemechanisms that enhance the supply <strong>of</strong>environmental services and the welfare<strong>of</strong> smallholder agr<strong>of</strong>oresters <strong>in</strong> multifunctionallandscapes. <strong>The</strong> Centre is graduallyexpand<strong>in</strong>g work on environmental servicemechanisms from specific locations<strong>in</strong> Southeast Asia to key locations <strong>in</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong>America and South Asia.• <strong>The</strong> ways that global environmentalagreements can be modified or implementedto maximize the potential foragr<strong>of</strong>orestry to synergize the objectives<strong>of</strong> the agreements with that <strong>of</strong> reduc<strong>in</strong>gpoverty.Acknowledgements<strong>The</strong> authors wish to thank Reg<strong>in</strong>a Birnerand Tom Tomich for constructive commentson a previous version <strong>of</strong> this chapter.ReferencesAgrawal, A. and E. Ostrom 2001. Collectiveaction, property rights and devolution <strong>of</strong>forest and protected area management.In: Me<strong>in</strong>zen-Dick, R., A. Knox and M. diGregoria (eds), Collective Action, PropertyRights and Devolution <strong>of</strong> NaturalResource Management, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong>an International Conference 21–25 June1999, Puerto Azul, the Philipp<strong>in</strong>es. DeutscheStiftung für Internationale Entwicklung,Feldaf<strong>in</strong>g, Germany.Ashley, R., D. Russell and B. Swallow 2005.<strong>The</strong> policy terra<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> protected area landscapes:<strong>challenge</strong>s for agr<strong>of</strong>orestry <strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>tegrated landscape conservation. Biodiversityand Conservation (<strong>in</strong> press).ASB (2001). ASB Policy Brief 2: Putt<strong>in</strong>g Community-BasedForest Management on theMap. Alternatives to Slash and Burn Program,<strong>World</strong> Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry Centre, Nairobi,Kenya.Barrow, E. and W. Mlenge 2003. Trees as keyto pastoral risk management <strong>in</strong> semi-aridlandscapes <strong>in</strong> Sh<strong>in</strong>yanga, 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 <strong>of</strong> Tree andLand Tenure. Community Forestry Note5. Food and Agriculture Organization <strong>of</strong>the United Nations. Available onl<strong>in</strong>e 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.
Chapter 10: Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry and environmental governance93Chaco, O.J., G.R. Marshall and M. Milne 2002.Smallholder Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry Projects: Potentialfor Carbon Sequestration and Poverty Alleviation.Food and Agriculture Organization<strong>of</strong> the United Nations: Rome, Italy.Cronon, W. 1996. Uncommon Ground:Reth<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g the Human Place <strong>in</strong> Nature.Norton, New York, USA.Fay, C. and G. Michon 2003. Redress<strong>in</strong>g forestryhegemony: when a forestry regulatoryframework is best replaced by an agrarianone. Paper presented at the InternationalConference on Rural Livelihoods, Forestsand Biodiversity 19–23 May, Bonn,Germany.Fortmann, L. 1985. <strong>The</strong> tree tenure factor <strong>in</strong>agr<strong>of</strong>orestry with particular reference toAfrica. Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry Systems 2: 240–243.Fortmann, L. 1998. Why women’s propertyrights matter. Paper presented at the InternationalConference on Land Tenure<strong>in</strong> the Develop<strong>in</strong>g <strong>World</strong> 27–29 January,University <strong>of</strong> Capetown, South Africa.Fortmann, L. and J.W. Bruce (eds) 1988. WhoseTrees? Proprietary Dimensions <strong>of</strong> Forestry.Westview Press, Boulder, USA.Garrity, D., V.B. Amoroso, S. K<strong>of</strong>fa, D. Catacutan,G. Buenavista, P. Fay and W. Dar2002. Landcare on the poverty-protection<strong>in</strong>terface <strong>in</strong> an Asian watershed. ConservationEcology 6(1): 12. Available onl<strong>in</strong>eat www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss1/art12.Gladw<strong>in</strong>, C.H., J.S. Peterson, D. Phiri andR. Uttaro 2002. Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry adoptiondecisions, structural adjustment and gender<strong>in</strong> Africa. In: Barrett, C.B., F. Placeand A.A. Aboud (eds) Natural ResourcesManagement <strong>in</strong> African Agriculture: Understand<strong>in</strong>gand Improv<strong>in</strong>g Current Practices.CAB International, Wall<strong>in</strong>gford, UK,pp. 115–129.Grieg-Gran, M. and C. Bann 2003. A closerlook at payments and markets for environmentalservices. In: Gutnam, P. (ed) FromGoodwill to Payments for EnvironmentalServices: A Survey <strong>of</strong> F<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g Optionsfor Susta<strong>in</strong>able Natural Resource Management<strong>in</strong> Develop<strong>in</strong>g Countries. <strong>World</strong>wideFund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.IPCC 2001. Third Assessment Report on Mitigation.Inter-Governmental Panel on ClimateChange. United Nations EnvironmentalProgramme and <strong>World</strong> MeteorologicalOrganization, Geneva, Switzerland. Availableonl<strong>in</strong>e at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/ICRAF/AMAN/FPP 2003. In Search <strong>of</strong> Recognition.<strong>World</strong> Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry Centre (ICRAF),Alliance <strong>of</strong> Indigenous Peoples <strong>of</strong> theArchipelago, (AMAN) and Forest People’sProgramme (FPP), Bogor, Indonesia.Krey, M. 2004. Transaction Costs <strong>of</strong> CDMProjects <strong>in</strong> India – An Empirical Survey.Report 238. Hamburg Institute <strong>of</strong> InternationalEconomics, Hamburg, Germany.Landell-Mills, N. and I.T. Porras 2002. SilverBullet or Fool’s Gold? A Global Review <strong>of</strong>Markets for Forest Environmental Servicesand their Impact on the Poor. InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development,London, UK.Leakey, R.R.B. 1996. Def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>of</strong> agr<strong>of</strong>orestryrevisited. Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry Today 8(1): 5–7.Me<strong>in</strong>zen-Dick, R., A. Knox, F. Place and B.Swallow (eds) 2002. Innovation <strong>in</strong> NaturalResource Management: <strong>The</strong> Role <strong>of</strong>Property Rights and Collective Action <strong>in</strong>Develop<strong>in</strong>g Countries. Johns Hopk<strong>in</strong>sUniversity Press, Baltimore, USA.Otsuka, K. and F. Place 2001. Land Tenure andNatural Resource Management: A ComparativeStudy <strong>of</strong> Agrarian Communities <strong>in</strong>Asia and Africa. Johns Hopk<strong>in</strong>s UniversityPress:, Baltimore, USA.Place, F. 1995. <strong>The</strong> Role <strong>of</strong> Land Tenure <strong>in</strong> theAdoption <strong>of</strong> Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry <strong>in</strong> Burundi,Uganda, Zambia and Malawi: A Summary<strong>of</strong> Synthesis. Land Tenure Centre: Madison,USA.Place, F. and K. Otsuka 2002. Tenure and treemanagement <strong>in</strong> Uganda and Malawi. In:Me<strong>in</strong>zen-Dick, R., A. Knox, F. Place andB. Swallow (eds) Innovation <strong>in</strong> Natural ResourceManagement: <strong>The</strong> Role <strong>of</strong> PropertyRights and Collective Action <strong>in</strong> Develop<strong>in</strong>gCountries. Johns Hopk<strong>in</strong>s UniversityPress, Baltimore, USA.Ra<strong>in</strong>tree, J. (ed) 1987. Land, Trees and Tenure.Land Tenure Centre, Madison, USA andInternational Centre for Research <strong>in</strong> Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry,Nairobi, Kenya.RUPES 2004. Reward<strong>in</strong>g Upland Poor for EnvironmentalServices. Home page at: www.worldagr<strong>of</strong>orestrycentre.org/sea/Networks/RUPESRussell, D., J. Ribot and F. Swartzendruber 2001.Central Africa and forest governance:counter-balanc<strong>in</strong>g the powers <strong>of</strong> publicand private sectors. CARPE Issue Brief No.11. Central African Regional Program forthe Environment, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, DC, USA.Schroeder, R.A. 1999. Shady Practices: Agr<strong>of</strong>orestryand Gender Politics <strong>in</strong> <strong>The</strong> Gambia.University <strong>of</strong> California Press, Berkeley,USA.Schroth, G., C.A. Harvey and G. V<strong>in</strong>cent 2004.Complex agr<strong>of</strong>orests: their structure,diversity, and potential role <strong>in</strong> landscapeconservation. In: Schroth, G., G.A.B. daFonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L.Vasconcelos and A.M.N. Izac (eds) Agr<strong>of</strong>orestryand Biodiversity Conservation <strong>in</strong>Tropical Landscapes. Island Press, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton,DC, USA,Suyanto S., T.P. Tomich and K. Otsuka 2001.Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry management <strong>in</strong> Sumatra. In:Otsuka, K. and F. Place (eds) Land Tenureand Natural Resource Management: AComparative Study <strong>of</strong> Agrarian Communities<strong>in</strong> Asia and Africa. Johns Hopk<strong>in</strong>sUniversity Press, Baltimore, USA andLondon, UK.Suyanto, S., R.P. Permana, N. Khususiyah andL. Joshi 2005. Land tenure, agr<strong>of</strong>orestry
- Page 4 and 5:
CitationGarrity, D., A. Okono, M. G
- Page 6 and 7:
Enhancing Environmental ServicesCha
- Page 8 and 9:
viWorld Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 10 and 11:
viiiWorld Agroforestry into the Fut
- Page 13 and 14:
Agroforestry and the Future
- Page 15 and 16:
Keywords:Millennium Development Goa
- Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1: Science-based agroforest
- Page 19 and 20:
Chapter 1: Science-based agroforest
- Page 21 and 22:
Trees and Markets
- Page 23 and 24:
Keywords:Dacryodes edulis, Irvingia
- Page 25 and 26:
Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 27 and 28:
Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 29 and 30:
Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 33 and 34:
Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 35 and 36:
Keywords:Perennial tree crops, plan
- Page 37 and 38:
Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 39 and 40:
Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 43 and 44:
Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 45 and 46:
Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 47:
Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 50 and 51:
38World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 52 and 53:
40World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 54 and 55: “Trees influence landscape scaled
- Page 56 and 57: 44World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 58 and 59: 46World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 60 and 61: 48World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 62 and 63: 50World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 65 and 66: Keywords:Agroforestry, improved fal
- Page 67 and 68: Chapter 6: Agroforestry innovations
- Page 69 and 70: Chapter 6: Agroforestry innovations
- Page 71 and 72: Chapter 6: Agroforestry innovations
- Page 73 and 74: Keywords:Extension, farmer-centred
- Page 75 and 76: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 77 and 78: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 79 and 80: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 81 and 82: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 83 and 84: Keywords:Policy, land management, a
- Page 85 and 86: Chapter 8: Policies for improved la
- Page 87 and 88: Chapter 8: Policies for improved la
- Page 89 and 90: Chapter 8: Policies for improved la
- Page 91 and 92: Chapter 9Land and People:Working Gr
- Page 93: Chapter 9: Land and people81• sca
- Page 96 and 97: “Forest conservation is no longer
- Page 98 and 99: 86World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 100 and 101: 88World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 102 and 103: 90World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 106 and 107: 94World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 108 and 109: 96World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 110 and 111: 98World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 112 and 113: 100World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 115 and 116: Keywords:Agroforestry, buffering wa
- Page 117 and 118: Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 119 and 120: Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 121 and 122: Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 123 and 124: Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 125 and 126: Keywords:Agroforestry, vulnerabilit
- Page 127 and 128: Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 129 and 130: Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 131 and 132: Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 133: Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 136 and 137: 124World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 138 and 139: 126World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 140 and 141: “Agroforestry can and does playa
- Page 142 and 143: 130World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 144 and 145: 132World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 147 and 148: Keywords:Educational impact, sustai
- Page 149 and 150: Chapter 16: Capacity building in ag
- Page 151 and 152: Chapter 16: Capacity building in ag
- Page 153 and 154: Keywords:Networking, research-exten
- Page 155 and 156:
Chapter 17: Institutional collabora
- Page 157 and 158:
Chapter 17: Institutional collabora
- Page 159 and 160:
Keywords:Capacity building, agrofor
- Page 161 and 162:
Chapter 18: Building capacity for r
- Page 163 and 164:
Chapter 18: Building capacity for r
- Page 165 and 166:
Chapter 18: Building capacity for r
- Page 167 and 168:
Keywords:E-learning, agricultural e
- Page 169 and 170:
Chapter 19: Can e-learning support
- Page 171 and 172:
Chapter 19: Can e-learning support
- Page 173 and 174:
Chapter 19: Can e-learning support
- Page 175 and 176:
Chapter 20Strengthening Institution
- Page 177:
Chapter 20: Strengthening instituti
- Page 180 and 181:
168“The biological characteristic
- Page 182 and 183:
170World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 184 and 185:
172World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 186 and 187:
174World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 188 and 189:
176World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 190 and 191:
178World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 192 and 193:
180World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 194 and 195:
182World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 196 and 197:
184World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 198 and 199:
186World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 200 and 201:
188World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 202 and 203:
190World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 205 and 206:
Author ContactsFahmudin Agusisri@in
- Page 207 and 208:
Acronyms and AbbreviationsACIARAFTP
- Page 210:
CreditsFront cover photo: Karen Rob
- Page 213:
World Agroforestry into the Future