scenario, because most of the forest has disappeared, the effect of agroforestry
adoption on deforestation is indirect through output and labor market effects,
as discussed later in this chapter.
The Economic Logic
The key arguments in what we have called the land degradation–deforestation
hypothesis (Angelsen and Kaimowitz 2001) are that land-degrading and pro-
ductivity-reducing agricultural practices force farmers to clear new forestland
to make a living, that agroforestry is a sustainable practice and allows farmers
to generate more food and income over time from the same amount of land
than previously, and that agroforestry therefore reduces the need to convert
natural forests to agriculture.
The counter-hypothesis is that if a new farming practice or technology is
more profitable than previous land uses, farmers may expand their farmland
to make more money. Consider a farmer who wants to maximize the surplus
(net income) from the farm. He has access to as much labor as he wants in the
local labor market, can freely borrow money from the local bank to finance
any investments, and can sell as much of the produce as he wants at a fixed
price. He can increase his agricultural area by clearing forest, which is either
open access or part of his farm. A new technology becomes available or known
to him, and he adopts it because it will increase his income. Will he also clear
more forest? Certainly!
Here we made at least four key assumptions, and we will examine them
briefly. Each of them can modify or even reverse the conclusion.
First, expansion might not be an option. For example, the remaining land
could be protected by land use regulations (e.g., a park or wildlife reserve),
inaccessible or unsuitable for crop production, or already occupied by agricul-
ture or other land uses. This is the typical situation of a closed frontier, as in
the third case in Table 5.1. Obviously, from a research viewpoint the interest-
ing case to study is when expansion is a real option. But from a practical and
policy viewpoint, the distinction between open and closed frontiers is crucial,
with important policy implications.
Second, farmers might have “full belly” preferences, that is, they aim for a
specific subsistence target and, having reached that, they prefer leisure or social
activities. The assumption that farmers lose all interest in increasing their
income and consumption once a subsistence target has been reached seems
quite unrealistic, although evidence of such cases can be found. However, we
argue that “full belly” preferences are not as common as often assumed in
many deforestation analyses and in development and conservation interven-
tions. Indeed, basing policies and projects on this assumption is risky (see
Angelsen and Luckert in press).
Third, labor and capital constraints prevent farmers from enlarging their
- Is Agroforestry Likely to Reduce Deforestation? 93