Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-4 (section)

==== 4.8.1.3 Agroforestry ====

<div id="section-4-8-1-3-agroforestry-block-1"></div>

Agroforestry is defined as a collective name for land-use systems in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, etc.) are grown in association with herbaceous plants (crops, pastures) and/or livestock in a spatial arrangement, a rotation, or both, and in which there are both ecological and economic interactions between the tree and non-tree components of the system (Young, 1995, p. 11 <sup>[[#fn:r983|983]]</sup> ). At least since the 1980s, agroforestry has been widely touted as an ideal land management practice in areas vulnerable to climate variations and subject to soil erosion. Agroforestry holds the promise of improving soil and climatic conditions, while generating income from wood energy, timber and non-timber products – sometimes presented as a synergy of adaptation and mitigation of climate change (Mbow et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r984|984]]</sup> ).

There is strong scientific consensus that a combination of forestry with agricultural crops and/or livestock, agroforestry systems can provide additional ecosystem services when compared with monoculture crop systems (Waldron et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r985|985]]</sup> ; Sonwa et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r986|986]]</sup> , 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r987|987]]</sup> , 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r988|988]]</sup> ; Charles et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r989|989]]</sup> ). Agroforestry can enable sustainable intensification by allowing continuous production on the same unit of land with higher productivity without the need to use shifting agriculture systems to maintain crop yields (Nath et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r990|990]]</sup> ). This is especially relevant where there is a regional requirement to find a balance between the demand for increased agricultural production and the protection of adjacent natural ecosystems such as primary and secondary forests (Mbow et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r991|991]]</sup> ). For example, the use of agroforestry for perennial crops such as coffee and cocoa is increasingly promoted as offering a route to sustainable farming, with important climate change adaptation and mitigation co-benefits (Sonwa et al. 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r992|992]]</sup> ; Kroeger et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r993|993]]</sup> ). Reported co-benefits of agroforestry in cocoa production include increased carbon sequestration in soils and biomass, improved water and nutrient use efficiency and the creation of a favourable micro-climate for crop production (Sonwa et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r994|994]]</sup> ; Chia et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r995|995]]</sup> ). Importantly, the maintenance of soil fertility using agroforestry has the potential to reduce the practice of shifting agriculture (of cocoa) which results in deforestation (Gockowski and Sonwa 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r996|996]]</sup> ). However, positive interactions within these systems can be ecosystem and/or species specific, but co-benefits such as increased resilience to extreme climate events, or improved soil fertility are not always observed (Blaser et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r997|997]]</sup> ; Abdulai et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r998|998]]</sup> ). These contrasting outcomes indicate the importance of field-scale research programmes to inform agroforestry system design, species selection and management practices (Sonwa et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r999|999]]</sup> ).

Despite the many proven benefits, adoption of agroforestry has been low and slow (Toth et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1000|1000]]</sup> ; Pattanayak et al. 2003 <sup>[[#fn:r1001|1001]]</sup> ; Jerneck and Olsson 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1002|1002]]</sup> ). There are several reasons for the slow uptake, but the perception of risks and the time lag between adoption and realisation of benefits are often important (Pattanayak et al. 2003 <sup>[[#fn:r1003|1003]]</sup> ; Mercer 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r1004|1004]]</sup> ; Jerneck and Olsson 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1005|1005]]</sup> ).

An important question for agroforestry is whether it supports poverty alleviation, or if it favours comparatively affluent households. Experiences from India suggest that the overall adoption is low, with a differential between rich and poor households. Brockington el al. (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1006|1006]]</sup> , studied agroforestry adoption over many years in South India and found that, overall, only 18% of the households adopted agroforestry. However, among the relatively rich households who adopted agroforestry, 97% were still practising it after six to eight years, and some had expanded their operations. Similar results were obtained in Western Kenya, where food-secure households were much more willing to adopt agroforestry than food-insecure households (Jerneck and Olsson 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1007|1007]]</sup> , 2014). Other experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa illustrate the difficulties (such as local institutional support) of having a continued engagement of communities in agroforestry (Noordin et al. 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r1008|1008]]</sup> ; Matata et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1009|1009]]</sup> ; Meijer et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1010|1010]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-4-8-1-4-crop-livestock-interaction-as-an-approach-to-managing-land-degradation"></div>

<span id="croplivestock-interaction-as-an-approach-to-managing-land-degradation"></span>