to convert agricultural land to agroforestry is $138 per hectare per year. Reas-
suringly, this result is very close to the average difference in returns between
slash-and-burn and agroforestry in the first 2 years ($144), depicted in Table
4.3, indicating that the compensation amounts estimated with the CV
method reflect expected financial losses.
The compensation amount estimated here took into account only the
financial losses experienced by farmers from the adoption of agroforestry.
However, the survey showed that Peruvian farmers also benefit from the envi-
ronmental services provided by forests preserved or planted under agro-
forestry. Almost all respondents (96 percent) claimed it was important to pre-
serve forests. Forests were seen primarily as a source of construction materials
and nontimber forest products (mainly game animals, medicinal plants, and
firewood), but despite the dominance of these consumptive uses, noncon-
sumptive forest services such as air purification, shade, wind shelter, and water
quality were frequently mentioned as well. And, remarkably, farmers also
advocated bequest values and option values (in the form of biodiversity preser-
82 II. The Ecological Economics of Agroforestry
Table 4.3. Returns to slash-and-burn agriculture and
multistrata agroforestry during the first 2 years (in US$
per hectare).
Production System Year 1 Year 2
SLASH-AND-BURN:
Value of output:a
Rice 366 0
Cassava 0 300
Plantain 0 862
Laborb 663 459
Gross margin –297 703
MULTISTRATA AGROFORESTRY:
Value of output:a
Rice 366 0
Cassava 0 300
Plantain 0 862
Laborc 683 527
Planting materiald 200 0
Gross margin –517 635
Difference in gross margins
(agroforestry – slash-and-burn) –220 –68
Source:Adapted from Labarta (1996).
aYields: rice = 1.7 ton ha–1, cassava = 8.7 ton ha–1, plantain = 10 ton
ha–1.
bDeforestation: 60 labor days/ha–1; other: 135 labor days/ha–1.
cAdditional planting and weeding: first year = 11 labor days/ha–1; sec-
ond year = 20 labor days/ha–1.
dFruit trees = 50%; timber species = 50%.