Food and forests: We can have them both

Agriculture provides most of the world’s food. It also contributes the most to global deforestation. This does not mean, however, that we need to choose between feeding a rapidly growing population and protecting the forests that are so essential to our wellbeing.

While many countries have first depleted their forests before seeing a rebound in tree cover, this “business-as-usual” scenario is not inevitable. But changing it does require a paradigm shift. In part, it means redefining what “successful” pathways to sustainable development look like, so that they resonate with local leaders and reflect local realities – and thus gain political support. In addition, transitioning away from the status quo depends on forming new and creative partnerships between companies, communities, governments, and investors.

How to bring about this new food-and-forest paradigm? An ongoing study - funded by the Program on Forests (PROFOR) and led by the World Bank's Agriculture and Environment Global Practices along with experts from many agricultural and environmental organizations - is trying to find concrete answers. The team is focusing on six agricultural commodities: three that are heavily implicated in deforestation activities (palm oil, soy and beef), and three that could include planting trees in their cultivation (cocoa, coffee and shea butter). In an initial synthesis study, the researchers draw out some key lessons for removing deforestation from agricultural supply chains sooner rather than later, and for increasing the planting of trees in agricultural lands. Here are just six of their takeaways:       

1. Success starts with the farmer. There are many agricultural practices which, if implemented at scale, can benefit crop yields while slowing deforestation or increasing tree cover. Not only must farmers be fully equipped with this information, but they should be consulted and supported in making the transition to sustainable production systems.

2. It is important to recognize and reward innovators. A system based entirely on punishing those who contribute to deforestation is unlikely to be effective in the long run. A more promising approach is to reward farmers who use creative, forest-friendly practices, while widely promoting the monetary and ecosystem benefits of these methods.    

3. Corporations’ sustainability pledges are important but not sufficient. A new and promising trend is the emergence of technical, commercial, and financial partnerships between companies, farmers, communities, and regional authorities.   

4. Government policies and programs need to be updated. In many cases, existing regulations prevent farmers from harvesting and marketing trees, deterring them from planting trees in agricultural landscapes. Ministries of agriculture and of environment need to work together to revise these legal frameworks so that farmers can sustainably grow and harvest trees on their lands.

5. Regional action is critical. Efforts to combat deforestation in the agricultural sector sometimes fail because supply chains transcend national boundaries. Large-scale transformation is possible, but it needs to be backed-up by multi-stakeholder processes that lay out a shared vision for a region.

6. The costs of forest loss need to be communicated more clearly. Forest conservation is often viewed through the lens of foregone agricultural profits. Governments should do a better job of communicating why forests are so crucial. For instance, improved management of shea trees in Sahelian countries could strengthen economic returns and ecological stability, with possible knock-on benefits like sustained income generation, jobs for women and youth, and lower incidence of conflict and migration induced by poor access to natural resources.

Initial findings from the synthesis study, “Leveraging agricultural value chains to enhance tropical tree cover and slow deforestation (LEAVES),” will be shared at the Global Landscapes Forum (GLF): The Investment Case in Washington, D.C. on May 30^th. Its authors hope to start building momentum for their new approach to productive and sustainable agriculture.  

“Although the private sector has been the main driver behind sustainability initiatives like Brazil’s Soy Moratorium and Cattle Agreement, support from the World Bank was instrumental,” said Dora Nsuwa Cudjoe, Senior Environmental Specialist, and Co-Task Team Leader of the LEAVES knowledge product at the World Bank. “The Bank can show the same level of engagement in the agroforestry commodities like coffee, cocoa, and shea, to help scale up private sector efforts. The opportunity is here.”

Photo: Josephhunwick.com

For stories and updates on related activities, follow us on twitter and facebook, or subscribe to our mailing list for regular updates.

Last Updated : 08-21-2018

When thinking of forests, don’t forget the value of trees

Over the past decade, commitments and support for Forest Landscape Restoration have grown significantly. As part of the Bonn Challenge, for instance, some 40 countries, sub-national jurisdictions, and non-governmental entities have now pledged to restore forest landscapes across 148 million hectares.  Although the environmental benefits in terms of ecosystem services, soil restoration, water, biodiversity and climate resilience are evident, the tremendous economic arguments and the value proposition for poor people living in, or nearby, the forests, are not always at the forefront of the efforts to restore landscapes.

In fact, some 1.3 billion people around the world depend on forests for their livelihood—that is 20% of the global population. This includes income from the sale of trees and tree-related products. It also includes the value of fruit, fodder, medicines, and other direct or indirect products that they consume. However, the restoration of forest landscape at a global scale needs a new vision for an integrated forest economy which appreciates and understands forests along their entire value chain. Thus it is crucial to see forest landscape restoration efforts as much more than just protecting forests, but as a force for economic growth and poverty reduction.

Indeed, restoring forest landscapes could bring renewed economic opportunity, improved water supply, and climate resilience. IUCN estimates the annual net benefit of restoring 150 million hectares of land at approximately US$85 billion per year. In addition, such restoration would sequester massive amounts of greenhouse gases and go a long way towards stabilizing climate change at 2 degrees Celsius.

It is in this context that forest landscape restoration is receiving increasing attention due to a huge growth in demand for forest products and bioenergy around the world. A recent study undertaken in six tropical countries confirms the rapidly widening supply gap of harvested wood products and wood-based energy. PROFOR, with the support of its partners and donors, has translated this challenge into coherent regulatory and governance solutions that can support smallholders and small and medium forest enterprises, through land and forest tenure, new technology, adequate finance and market access.

If the ambitious scale for the global and national forest restoration targets is to be achieved, the economic arguments should be back at the center, along with the conservation ones. It is not just forests that matter. In most cases it will help to approach the challenges by looking at tree-based systems. Trees on farms are more widespread than mostly reported, and can provide substantial benefits.

A study in four sub-Saharan countries shows that one third of rural farms report growing trees and, on average, these farms are economically better off than those who don’t. The study also shows evidence that trees on farms can improve the productivity of landscapes. Trees on farms, however, are overlooked both by national agriculture and forest policies as they fall somehow in between these two camps. As a result, PROFOR is now preparing a new guidebook on how agricultural household services can systematically include tree relevant data.

Two other PROFOR studies try to understand the key factors driving the adoption of tree-based systems (TBS) at scale in Malawi and Rwanda, which result in improved soil fertility, higher crop yields, and increased agricultural production by helping control soil erosion, replenishing soil organic matter and nutrients, while diversifying income and building resilience to climate shocks.

In Malawi, tree-based systems have been widely promoted to help increase agricultural production among smallholder farmers who cannot afford to buy chemical fertilizers.  Using conservative assumptions and estimates, the total savings from replacing subsidized fertilizer with fodder (Gliricidia) fertilizer is $45.98 per year per household. Assuming that more than 1,5 million households could potentially be reached, and that all of them adopt Gliricidia/maize intercropping systems, the potential total annual savings is estimated at $71 million per year.

In Rwanda, TBS in agricultural lands are widespread. For a country where most poor families live in rural areas, shows how the spread of tree-based systems could help farmers in boosting crop yields and diversifying their incomes. The adoption of TBS for the production of fruits, wood products, milk, soil erosion control, and soil fertility management has already led to higher incomes.

As more evidence starts to show not only the environmental benefits but also the economic ones, it will be important to look at tree-based economic systems in a more holistic way, systematically analyzing the regulatory, financial and technical assistance needs that small holders and small companies would need, not only during the planting process, but along the entire value chain.

These examples are evidence of the great environmental, economic and poverty reduction opportunities that forest landscape restoration can offer. They are also a reminder that when thinking of forests, we must not forget to see the economic value of trees.

For stories and updates on related activities, follow us on twitter and facebook, or subscribe to our mailing list for regular updates.

Last Updated : 07-24-2017

Think Big: Landscapes rich with trees deliver multiple benefits

Most development projects start out with a particular assumption about scale: the first order of business is to run a pilot to test a particular intervention, and then, if the results are promising, go on to duplicate the intervention to reach a greater number of people. 

This assumption makes sense in a good number of situations – but not always. For a PROFOR-supported research team looking at the practice of growing trees on cropland, the logical approach actually started with thinking big.

As team leader and World Bank Sr. Natural Resources Economist Diji Chandrasekharan explained, “Instead of asking the question ‘what works and how do we scale it up?’ we wanted to ask, ‘what’s happening at scale and why?’ We wanted to find something that was already large, find out why, and how those conditions could be enabled elsewhere.”

The team’s study focused on Rwanda and Malawi, where Tree-Based Systems (TBS) are common on agricultural lands, although carried out in different ways. In Rwanda, agroforestry practices largely take the shape of farm woodlots, contour hedgerows, gardens, scattered trees in fields, and boundary-planted trees. Not only has agroforestry been practiced for centuries in Rwanda, but the government has a history of promoting such initiatives. In Malawi, thousands of hectares of cropland are under Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR), a low-cost technique to revive trees and shrubs, and thus improve soil fertility.  

While TBS practices vary widely, they are generally linked to a range of economic and environmental benefits. First there is the ability of households to use trees for fuelwood, charcoal, timber, or as a source of income. Second, trees can boost agricultural productivity: a study in Malawi found that maize yields increased by 4-53 percent when the crop was planted under Faidherbia trees. In addition, trees on farms can act as an important carbon sink, sequestering greenhouse gas emissions even as forests around the world continue to be threatened. In Malawi, maize intercropped with G. sepium can result in the removal of 1.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) per hectare every year. These multiple benefits are crucial for Malawi and Rwanda. Not only do both countries have growing populations that rely overwhelmingly on agriculture for their livelihoods - which are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change – but they have also committed to help mitigate CO₂ emissions.

Yet for all of the advantages of TBS, the practice is not being adopted everywhere – so what is happening in Malawi and Rwanda to make it so widespread?

The team found that the likelihood of TBS being adopted depended on several factors, including the availability of agricultural extension services; access to tree seeds and seedlings; the existence and effectiveness of local bylaws promoting TBS; and the effectiveness of trees in enhancing soil fertility.

Equally interesting was the significance of collective action in promoting TBS. As Diji Chandrasekharan noted, “We need to find ways to go beyond putting in place the right policy environment and investing in the most efficient technologies. We also need to help build social capital by supporting the conditions under which village leaders can bring community members together and transfer technology through a collective mechanism.”

Based on their findings, the research team drew up recommendations for the governments of Rwanda and Malawi to further promote TBS. For instance, both Malawi and Rwanda could put their existing agricultural extension programs to work more effectively in promoting for trees on farms. In Malawi, there is a very clear economic case for expanding TBS: instead of subsidizing fertilizer to improve agricultural productivity, the government could save some $71 million annually by promoting the intercropping of trees in maize fields.

In addition, results from the studies will feed directly into country-level interventions, including the Forest Investment Program in Rwanda, and a new project being discussed in Malawi. More broadly, Diji Chandrasekharan hopes to raise greater awareness of the multiple benefits of TBS on agricultural and other landscapes, as well as the value of thinking – early on – about going to scale. “Our framework points to the importance of knowing what scale you want to reach right from the beginning, and then working backwards,” she said. “That requires a subtle difference in how we plan and design projects”

For stories and updates on related activities, follow us on twitter and facebook, or subscribe to our mailing list for regular updates.

Last Updated : 07-17-2017