Conclusions
Agroforestry researchers have not paid much attention to the impact of agro-
forestry on deforestation. To the extent that they have, a Peruvian case study
on yield differences has been taken as a global measure of deforestation
impacts. This has created a widespread belief that agroforestry reduces defor-
estation by a ratio of about 1:5. Extensive research, taking the farmers and
market responses into account, demonstrates that technological change often
leads to more, rather than less, deforestation, and this may also apply to agro-
forestry if it increases the profitability of land use unless there are factors such
as labor, capital, or market constraints that limit agricultural expansion into
forest areas.
The study by Sanchez and Benites (1987) formed an important pillar of
the ASB Programme, with earlier articles using their results to demonstrate its
deforestation-reducing potential (ASB 1994). It is therefore interesting to see
how the ASB-Indonesia studies conclude, based on their findings in Sumatra:
“It is naïve to expect that productivity increases necessarily slow forest conver-
sion or improve the environment. Indeed quite the opposite is possible....
ASB research in Indonesia has shown that land use change normally involves
tradeoffs between global environmental concerns and the objectives of poverty
alleviation and national development” (Tomich et al. 2001, 242).
This is not to deny that agroforestry in some cases can curb deforestation.
Our message is that a general claim that agroforestry reduces deforestation
(including the 1:5 ratio) is wrong, basing deforestation policies and programs
on unqualified assumptions will not help reduce deforestation and can lead to
misallocation of development and research efforts, and the impact of intro-
ducing agroforestry practices is conditioned by the type of practice, farmer
characteristics, and market and tenure conditions. In short, the win-win situ-
ations in which agroforestry can meet both local development and forest
conservation objectives are characterized by technologies that are suited specif-
ically for forest-poor areas; labor-intensive technologies when labor is scarce
and in-migration limited; promotion of intensive systems when farmers are
involved in extensive, low-yielding practices; and technologies that raise the
aggregate supply significantly when demand is inelastic (causing price
decline).
We have also pointed out that trade-offs might be more common than
often assumed. When agroforestry practices are successful and adopted on a
large scale and forest areas still are accessible, one is often presented with a
trade-off: land under agroforestry practices has desirable ecological character-
istics compared with alternative land uses, but the area of primary forest is
being reduced. And the types of agroforestry techniques that are most likely to
be adopted and therefore to be most beneficial to the farmers are those that
save labor and produce crops for large national or international markets
- Is Agroforestry Likely to Reduce Deforestation? 103