Introduction

Agroforestry, a system that combines trees or shrubs with crops or animals on the same plot (Consortium Agroforestry 2024), is currently being (re)discovered in many parts of the world, including Europe. Since the 1950s traditional agroforestry systems have started to disappear in Western Europe (Nerlich et al. 2012). This trend was mainly caused by the intensification of agriculture from the sixties onwards, involving increasing mechanisation, less manpower for the more labour-intensive orchards, a post-war drive to increase yields and the removal of boundary trees (Eichhorn et al. 2006).

Since the 1980s, agroforestry has gained interest of researchers worldwide (Gold and Hanover 1987; Nerlich et al. 2012), first especially in the (sub)tropical areas but more recently also in regions with a more temperate climate such as North-western Europe. Agroforestry has the potential to increase biodiversity and deliver many regulating ecosystem services such as local climate change adaptation, erosion control, and climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration (Jose 2009; Smith et al. 2012). Additionally, the provisioning services of agroforestry are manifold, with generated products providing multiple income possibilities spread out over the short term (e.g. crops, livestock forage, animal products), medium term (e.g. nuts, fruits, berries, biomass) and long term (e.g. timber). Agroforestry can enhance a landscape or be part of a heritage landscape (cultural services) (Sollen-Norrlin et al. 2020). Despite these advantages, agroforestry is not yet practiced by many farmers in the European Union; with an acreage covering 20 million ha, only 10% of the potential acreage is used, according to data from a survey program of EUROSTAT. ‘The combination of two land covers integrating a woody component and an agricultural activity’ is here used as a definition for agroforestry (EUROSTAT 2013; Mosquera-Losada et al. 2018).

Attempts are being made to support agroforestry adoption, both at the European and national policy levels. At the European level, as part of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), agroforestry was considered an ecological focus area (Pillar 1) in the previous CAP (CAP 2014–2020) and in Pillar 2, agroforestry was supported by measure 8.2 (Donham et al. 2021). In the new CAP (CAP 2023–2027) pillar 2 measures are translated in Flanders into a plantation subsidy and a maintenance subsidy (Agency of Agriculture and Fisheries 2023). Between the launch of the subsidy in 2011 and September 2023, there have been 126 applications which resulted in the implementation of the submitted agroforestry plan, resulting in 275 ha of agroforestry (Agency of Agriculture and Fisheries 2024). Although it should be noted that this number of ha of agroforestry counted through subsidy applications is an underestimation of the actual area, because not all farmers use this channel, the target for Flanders according to the VLAIO Agroforestry 2025 project—500 ha of agroforestry by 2024 – has not yet been reached (ILVO et al. 2019).

Borremans et al. (2018) identified five major pathways to explain and stimulate agroforestry adoption: (1) the science and knowledge pathway, (2) the educational pathway, (3) the social and behavioural pathway, (4) the policy and institutional pathway and (5) the market and financial pathway. Most of these are also found in the studies of Plieninger et al. (2020), Tsonkova et al. (2018) and García de Jalón et al. (2018). Applied to the situation in Flanders, we can roughly state the following:

  1. (1)

    For the science and knowledge pathway, factors around knowledge gathering and dissemination play a role. Research on agroforestry is relatively young in Flanders (≥ 2014), but a couple of long-term research trial plots for agroforestry have been established at research institutes, practice centres and in collaboration with farmers.

  2. (2)

    Agro-ecological education and social learning in multi-actor networks could reverse the 'cognitive lock-in' (Louah et al. 2017). Currently, initiatives are being taken in some schools to integrate agroforestry and an online course is launched in January 2024. Since 2017, multi-actor networks around agroforestry have been deployed in Flanders in various projects such as AFINET with ‘Regional Agroforestry Innovation Networks’ (RAINs) and in Agroforestry 2025 with thematic living labs.

  3. (3)

    Regarding the social and behavioural pathway, farmers in Flanders generally had a relatively negative view on agroforestry (Borremans et al. 2016) but today they feel more pressure from society to work more sustainability and they experience the consequences of extreme weather conditions. So their generally rather adverse view is gradually altering into a cautious sceptical outlook..

  4. (4)

    The policy and institutional pathway, implies that policy and legislation also play a role in the uptake of agroforestry. A subsidy scheme was set up in Flanders since 2011, which led to an increasing trend of applications and number of agroforestry parcels: 5,3 ha of agroforestry was planted in 2012 and 54,9 ha in 2021 with the subsidy (Agency of Agriculture and Fisheries 2024). The legislation regarding the distinction between forest and agroforestry was in the past a grey area and has caused a lot of uncertainty among interested farmers (Borremans et al. 2018). More certainty and a simplification of legislation could lower thresholds to adopt agroforestry (Tsonkova et al. 2018), a work in progress in Flanders.

  5. (5)

    Finally, many farmers are not convinced of agroforestry as a profitable system (the market and financial pathway) (Sereke et al. 2015; Borremans et al. 2016). Economic reasons like market failures are considered as an important hampering factor faced by agroforestry farmers. The long rotation period of agroforestry systems causes uncertainty: e.g. nobody can predict what the price of wood will be in 20 or 30 years. During these decades, storms and diseases can occur, causing damage to the trees. On the other hand, the farmer must have assured yields in the short term in order to keep the farm running and earn a living (Borremans et al. 2018, 2019). In theory, agroforestry following the principle of ecological niche differentiation can lead to higher biophysical yields than monoculture systems (Tilman and Snell-Rood 2014; Artru et al. 2017). In practice, however, there are also competition effects at play (Ehret et al. 2015). How the yield will eventually turn out depends on management and design, on crop rotation and specific weather conditions, and is therefore context-specific (Torralba et al. 2016). Higher productivity also does not automatically mean financial benefits will follow (Palma et al. 2007). Major investment costs for agroforestry are incurred at the beginning of the rotation while some revenues such as timber sales come only at the end. In order to include risk and time preference in a monetary cost–benefit analysis over the whole rotation time of a agroforestry system, the Net Present Value (NPV) of costs and revenues is often calculated. With discount rates from the agricultural sector (4–5%) or the forestry sector (3–4%), it is difficult to obtain net positive results (Finger 2016; Van Vooren et al. 2016; Hauk et al. 2017; Sauter et al. 2018; Stadig et al. 2018). According to Thiesmeier and Zander (2023), the economic performance of agroforestry compared to agricultural land use is lower, but there are exemptions and compared to forestry, agroforestry reaches a better economic performance. In addition, the current market is not adapted to the range of products offered by agroforestry. Smaller quantities of products in greater diversity, which do not always meet a uniform quality, are more difficult to trade through usual channels such as a wholesalers or auctions (Rois-Díaz et al. 2017; Borremans et al. 2018). Agroforestry systems offer social benefits such as cultural services (e.g. heritage landscape, local tourism), climate regulation (e.g. carbon storage) and biodiversity services (Pardon et al. 2017, 2019; Van Vooren et al. 2017; Sollen-Norrlin et al. 2020), which are currently not (fully) reimbursed by society (Bithas and Latinopoulos 2021; Borremans et al. 2018).

In this study, we focused on the market and financial pathway and aim to identify, explore and classify economic incentives and appropriate market mechanisms for agroforestry in order to define opportunities and bottlenecks and to describe possible improvement pathways. The main question here is: ‘Which economic incentives are appropriate and attractable for farmers in which context?’ This analysis occurred with longitudinal data that was collected between 2015 and 2021 in the context of a number of research and innovation projects related to agroforestry.

Method

Data collection

The data originates from different projects that were carried out in Flanders by the Consortium Agroforestry Flanders, i.e. an informal collaboration between research institutes and organisations focusing on agroforestry. Data covers more or less the whole pioneering period of agroforestry in Flanders. Data collection took place over the years by eight different researchers, all belonging to the Consortium Agroforestry Flanders.

First, data collection took place in three focus groups, each at a different conference: (1) the Transdisciplinary Agroecology Meeting (November 2015 in Leuven, Belgium), (2) the North American Agroforestry Conference (July 2017 in Virginia, US), and (3) the Belgian Agroecology meeting (November 2017 in Gembloux, Belgium). Several stakeholders (students, farmers, researchers and members of civil society organisations) took part. Only in the last conference, no farmers participated. The total number of participants was 54, divided into smaller groups at these events. In the data obtained from the US conference, only those ideas that fit the Flemish context were included. To start the discussion, the '6–3-5 brainwriting' technique was used (Heslin 2009; Wodehouse and Ion 2012). This involves spending the first five minutes in silence in small groups of six writing down three ideas for how to economically stimulate agroforestry. These are then passed on to another participant who comments in a subsequent step. At the end, the top of the ideas is presented to the whole group and further discussions are held on the advantages and disadvantages of these ideas.

Second, in 2021, data was collected during meetings of nine thematic living labs for the VLAIO Agroforestry 2025 project in Flanders, each concerning a particular theme: (1) agroforestry at school; (2) fruit production in agroforestry, (3) nut production in agroforestry (4) mechanisation and cultivation techniques; (5) cooperative agroforestry; (6) food forests; (7) wood production in agroforestry; (8) carbon farming and (9) silvopastoral agroforestry. The themes were inspired by the first phase of data collection and experiences gained in previous projects on agroforestry (e.g. VLAIO ‘Agroforestry in Vlaanderen’ and EU ‘FARMLIFE’). These thematic living labs consisted of groups of stakeholders (including farmers, policy actors, advisors, processors and researchers) and were set up as action research groups in order to identify bottlenecks and implement levers for agroforestry systems. During the initial meetings of these thematic living labs, from February till May 2021, focus groups were held to discuss opportunities and obstacles for agroforestry and to think about actions to overcome these barriers. Plans were made to collaborate with the participating stakeholders to take action in stimulating agroforestry. These first meetings took place online due to the Covid-19 measures in place at the time. To stimulate participation in the discussion, the meetings were facilitated in the MURAL environment, where participants could brainstorm with post-its on an online white board (Fig. 1) (De Guzman 2016). Almost all these online meetings were recorded and a report was made immediately after the meeting ended. After these meetings, it was clear that two themes deserved an additional separate living lab: legislation and policy; and societal supporting base. In total 104 individuals participated in these thematic living lab meetings (Table 1). The data from these eventually eleven thematic living labs form the bulk for the qualitative analysis and was supplemented with the data gathered in the conference workshops from 2015–2017.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Template for the brainstorms with the online program Mural for a living lab

Full size image
Table 1 Focus group participants on the conferences and Living lab participants
Full size table

Data analysis

All data gathered in the focus groups and thematic living labs, together with grey literature like reports of agroforestry projects and other relevant projects, websites of the government and relevant companies and brochures, were analysed in Nvivo 12 in 2022—2023. Nvivo is a program that assists in analysing qualitative data: coding, recoding, and merging codes into themes can be done in this program in a clear and organized manner. In a first phase, fragments of text were coded as ‘potential economic incentive’ when relevant. In a second phase, all these codes and text fragments were analysed in order to come to a classification of economic incentives. Results of the first two phases are described together in the result section Classification of potential instruments.

In a third phase, deductive coding was done. Deductive coding involves analysing the data on the basis of an existing framework in order to organise the information obtained and gain new insights. All identified types of incentives were analysed according to a SWOT framework- strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

In a fourth phase, these codes were reanalysed according to a predefined framework, based on the SAF (Suitability, Acceptability and Feasibility) framework (Johnson et al. 2007; Wu 2010), supplemented by the adoption/participation framework (Whitten et al. 2012; Canessa et al. 2022). This adapted framework contains the three main SAF blocks. The questions on Suitability examine how compatible the instrument is with society, the farmer and his farming system. Can this instrument help to achieve the goal to have more systematic transformations to agroforestry? The competitiveness of this instrument in relation to other systems is also examined. The second block, Acceptability, looks at the costs and benefits of the instrument: is there a relative advantage for the farmer and society? And how easy is this instrument to apply? Is the right information readily available? The third block looks at the Feasibility of implementing the incentive by the different stakeholders involved. Questions and subcriteria were developed for each block in the framework (Table 2). Results of the third and fourth phase are combined and described in the result section Exploratory analysis based on the SAF framework.

Table 2 Framework for participation/adoption potential with SAF (Suitability, Acceptability and Feasibility). The elements of the SAF and the participation/adoption framework were combined and can be found in the columns under each main component
Full size table

The analysis was done in four phases, each time looking at the data from a slightly different angle, building up to the final phase where various incentives were assessed for their potential via the SAF framework.

Results

Classification of potential instruments

Economic incentives were classified in three groups (government-based, market-based and community-based incentives) based on the financer and the products or services delivered. The market-based category was subdivided into 'payment for products' and 'payment for ecosystem services'. The identified incentives cover both potential and existing incentives. After collecting the first dataset, this classification was established. The dataset collected in the second phase showed that this classification is still valid and robust. With the second dataset, the classification was further supplemented with new examples (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Overview of (possible) instruments with examples

Full size image

Government-based incentives

Government-based incentives exist at different levels (mainly European and Flemish level). First, there is support by subsidy programmes. On the Flemish level, there is the plantation subsidy that can be applied by farmers since 2011. This subsidy is partly funded by Europe via the second pillar of the CAP and refunds up to 75% of the initial plantation costs (Departement Landbouw en Visserij 2023; Donham et al. 2021). Since the new CAP in 2023, a maintenance subsidy of € 270/ha is in practice as a five-year agri-environmental measure (Departement Landbouw en Visserij 2023). Another Flemish support can come from the Flemish Agricultural Investment Fund: for the so-called 'non-productive investments' (CAP Pillar 1). Aid is granted up to 100% of the purchase of trees and bushes. At local level, support measures sometimes depend on initiatives taken by the local administration (provinces and municipalities). In the province of West-Flanders, for example, a campaign has been set up where farmers can apply for free trees to practice silvopastoral agroforestry to prevent heat stress by cattle (Province of West-Flanders 2022). Second, support could be provided in the form of land incentives, whereby public land is reserved for certain types of sustainable agricultural production systems and made available to farmers for free or at lower prices. The government could act as an intermediary for such a system, but for the time being the existing initiatives for such land incentives are still local and depend on local resources and goodwill. The municipality of Beernem, for example, retains its public farmland exclusively for farmers with carbon farming techniques. The need for affordable farmland is becoming increasingly urgent, especially for entrants. A reform of the tenancy legislation whereby the landowner could impose certain preconditions such as agroecological practices could also be a stimulation. However, care must still be taken to ensure that farmers retain sufficient participation. Currently, public institutions that own agricultural land and want to encourage farmers to engage in agroforestry and thus impose certain criteria in the use of their land have to circumvent the tenancy law by offering the land for free, something that remains unviable for institutions in the long run. In the current tenancy law, freedom of crop cultivation is still an important principle (Vandermaelen 2022). Even in the ongoing reform, it is not likely that this freedom of cultivation will be changed. Third, tax incentives could lower the threshold to adopt sustainable practices. Fourth, rent-free or cheap loans from the government for investments in sustainable agriculture were identified as a potential incentive.

Market opportunities

The second category of incentives can be found in market opportunities. This category can be subdivided in two payment categories: agroforestry products and ecosystem services.

Payment for products

Payments for agroforestry products (both from the tree component and crop/animal component) rely on the assumption that these products can be sold at a premium in e.g. niche specialty markets and direct marketing. Less-known products like hurleys from ash wood, a sort of hockey stick in Ireland (Buysse 2014), or ‘special fruit’ from food forests find their place in niche markets. Popular forms of direct marketing in Flanders are on-farm stores, vending machines on the farm, pick-up points with food boxes, farmers’ markets and self-harvesting initiatives. Another strategy to sell products with a premium price, is using a label (Liu 2010). A new idea is the development of a digital market for agroforestry products. On this platform, farmers could collaborate and post their supply. The demand side, consumers and agribusinesses, could place advertisements to find products they are looking for. It could also serve as a meeting place and source of inspiration for (future) agroforestry farmers.

Payment for ecosystem-services

Agroforestry can offer multiple ecosystem services and nowadays more attention is going to their (monetary) valorisation (Alam et al. 2014). Some farmers are already charging for the experience of being on a(n) (agroforestry or food forest) farm, giving guided tours or workshops on their farm, with agroforestry as an asset (cultural services). Since 2006, companies that want to provide care to vulnerable groups in society by letting them work under supervision on their farm, are able to receive compensation from the Flemish government (social service). Working in green spaces can lead to social reintegration and better mental health (De Krom and Dessein 2013). A regulatory service for which initiatives and interest for compensation arise is the storage of carbon in the soil and in the biomass (above- and belowground) of trees (Aslam et al. 2017). Currently, there are mainly private market initiatives starting to support all kinds of carbon storage projects including carbon farming via voluntary carbon credits (Annys et al. 2022). Some companies want to compensate their emissions under social pressure. Initiatives like Viridi Air and Farming For Climate wants to bring these companies together and set up a fund to support among others agroforestry farmers. Sponsors and providers are linked via intermediary services. Other ecosystem services (e.g. local climate adaption, a regulatory service) are currently difficult to remunerate, but funds can provide a solution: both by the private sector and via civil society organisations like ‘De Landgenoten’ (a foundation acquiring land to rent out to organic farmers) wants to remunerate farmers for ecosystem services delivered. As agroforestry can be seen as a resilient system, lowering insurance entries and justifying low-interest loans by the banking sector could be in place.

Community-based incentives

The fourth category of possible incentives comes from the community. A first community incentive consists of farmer-citizen agreements like crowdfunding or crowdlending. Crowdlending is supported by the Flemish Government through fiscal advantages to the lender. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) where the farmer takes out subscriptions for food parcels with consumers at the start of a season is another form of agreement between producer and consumer: the risk of crop failure is shared with the consumer in order to ensure a fair living wage to farmers (Diekmann and Theuvsen 2019; Samoggia et al. 2019). A farmer-citizen cooperative wants to go even further: all shareholders invest in the farm and important decisions are taken together. Other collaborations in the value chain are also possible: farmers can cooperate with other farmers, foresters, fruit growers, processors or traders. An example of such a potential collaboration is related to the current lack of autochthonous seed for tree nurseries, which could be partly solved by agroforestry farmers starting a tree or shrub seed garden as part of their system and opening it for nurseries to harvest. Schools and other public institutions are also interesting partners because they can introduce agroforestry to a broad public. Collaboration turns out to be an important driver, which is why the setting up of an agroforestry association is discussed in the thematic living labs. In this way, contacts can be made and knowledge and experience exchanged which can lead to a better resilience of the farmer (Kangogo et al. 2020). Through this association, the interests of agroforestry farmers could be represented in society.

Exploratory analysis based on the SAF framework

After the classification of (possible) incentives, the categories of incentives were assessed based on the SAF framework. In Fig. 3 an overview of this analysis is shown.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Overview of the SAF (Suitability, Acceptability & Feasibility) analysis of the different groups of economic incentives for agroforestry with advantages ( +) and disadvantages (-) listed for each element

Full size image

Government-based incentives

In terms of suitability, there is compatibility with current problems in society and policy instruments that seek to address them. The European objective of the Green Deal to be climate neutral by 2050 also means that the agricultural sector is supposed to implement more sustainable practices (European Commission 2021). Therefore, also in the context of the CAP one wants to focus more on sustainability goals by building in more requirements related to environmentally friendly practices that farmers must implement to get direct income support and by expanding the range of voluntary agri-environmental measures (Dessart et al. 2021). This policy is also translated to the individual member states, including in Flanders through the agroforestry subsidy. Farmers are familiar with government instruments such as subsidies. The subsidy has potential to give farmers an extra motivation to adopt agroforestry because investment costs are largely covered. However, not all agroforestry farmers in Flanders so far took advantage of this grant. Some farmers prefer other compensation tools over subsidies like a fair price for their products and services. In this way, their autonomy and entrepreneurial spirit remains more present, which could serve well-being at work and social recognition (Janker et al. 2021).

As there is typically a long payback period with agroforestry, a subsidy helps to bear the initial expenses and thus enhances the acceptability of agroforestry. The subsidy is perceived by most farmers as a transitional measure. Next to the subsidy to install the agroforestry system, a support measure for agroforestry maintenance is in place since January 2024, a measure that thematic living lab participants consider as necessary. Subsidies come with conditions that are not always flexible, for example the type of tree and the minimum and maximum number of trees per ha. Fortunately, some of the frequently raised concerns are taken into consideration for the new CAP, e.g. an increased flexibility regarding the tree density. Besides the subsidy, the current complex legislation around agroforestry also has an impact on the acceptability of agroforestry. The discussions in the thematic living labs revealed a sense of distrust regarding policy and regulations, and their reliability, partly due to the many rules and regulations concerning permits and inspections. The combination of a long turnaround time for agroforestry and the short term of a government period does not inspire confidence in a clear and consistent long-term vision. Currently, it is not always clear where and when agroforestry plots may be installed and/or removed due to different regulations at play, which are not always uniform across Flanders. Improvements have been made through the incorporation of an exception for agroforestry in the Forest Decree (after June 2016) and spatial legislation (Flemish Codex Spatial Planning, since July 2016). However, as legislation is still complex and several area-specific exceptions exist, farmers remain sceptical (Borremans et al. 2018). In addition, the regulations regarding food safety issues are not always clear, which might hamper certain combinations (e.g. fruit or nut production on plots where animals graze, or processing of food on-farm).

Regarding feasibility, the government has the resources to provide the subsidy and will continue to do so in the (near) future as attention and resources from the European Union are directed towards this topic. The improving legislation and subsidy schemes also indicate a political will to continue supporting this kind of sustainable agriculture.

Payment for products

For almost all farmers, food production is priority number one. Especially in view of the productivist policies and ideas that were supposed to ensure food security after the world wars, it is not surprising that today farmers derive their income mainly from food production and not from other services (Burton 2004). Farmers are often true entrepreneurs who value autonomy. Keeping a business running without outside help such as subsidies is satisfying and an inherent part of being a farmer (Graskemper et al. 2022; Niska et al. 2012). So regarding suitability, the incentives in this category are compatible with farmers’ objectives. Yet, agroforestry is not the only farming system producing these products and not the only farming system with which farmers attempt to sell products at a premium. Further, agroforestry can involve higher (labour) costs (Smith et al. 2022) which makes it difficult to compete with other farming systems.

When assessing acceptability, it is clear that the incentive 'payment for products' in itself does not change traditional economic laws: farmers must first invest and sell their products at a price that at least covers costs. Thus, with this incentive, there is not necessarily pre-financing, community help or income through other services. Moreover, products derived from the tree component face long-term issues. The long term aspect of agroforestry brings certain risks for the farmer and a degree of inflexibility. Farmers are used to work with annual crops, so the limited flexibility requires an adjustment. Prices for wood fluctuate widely and depend on trends in demand and pests and storms. To mitigate risks, it is advisable to diversify tree species, a method that is increasingly being used in forestry to mitigate climate change (West et al. 2021). For wood products, the long term can also just be an asset; after all, as a farmer, you can wait to harvest and sell until prices are right. In general, a balance must be found between sufficient sales volume per product on the one hand and sufficient diversity to absorb external shocks on the other.

With respect to feasibility, a farmer must be able to market the agroforestry products. To market these agroforestry products, consumer demand is necessary. But, at this time, many consumers do not know agroforestry and its benefits, and hence it is not clear if consumers would want to pay more for agroforestry products. So at present, this incentive will not trigger a major transition towards agroforestry. With the current limited awareness of agroforestry and demand for agroforestry, this incentive will only attract some individual farmers. Their strategy to obtain a fair price lies in short-chain initiatives like a web shop or a farmers’ market. To use this strategy, a farmer needs some extra skills like marketing and communication skills, what makes this type of incentive not feasible for every farmer. A label was also put forward as a possibility. A well-promoted label could raise awareness among a broad public of both consumers and farmers for agroforestry and strengthen the position of agroforestry products in the market (Liu 2010; Morone et al. 2021; Wei et al. 2018). However, discussions with farmers in our thematic living labs suggested that there is a certain 'label fatigue' among consumers. The large number of labels has left consumers overwhelmed and the use of misleading promises has caused some consumers to lose confidence and make it difficult to choose sustainably (Castka and Corbett 2016; De Bauw et al. 2021). Against the multitude of different labels, there is the possibility of the development of a uniform label that indicates how sustainable a product is made, like an ‘eco-score’.

Payment for ecosystem services

Many of the ecosystem services provided by agroforestry, such as temperature buffering, biodiversity enhancement and carbon storage, are currently not always remunerated (Moreno et al. 2018). This is a case of market failure: the externalisation of benefits. With respect to suitability, a decent payment for ecosystems services would be appropriate to foster multifunctional agriculture. This is in line with the CAP's new policy with the introduction of ecoschemes in Pillar 1 and the agri-environmental measures in Pillar 2 (Barral and Detang-Dessendre 2023). Many farmers are already familiar with agri-environmental measures. Currently, attention is mainly focused on the voluntary market of carbon credits. Through agriculture there are several measures to store carbon: for example, the use of cover crops, organic manure, permanent grasslands, no tillage and agroforestry. Some of these measures are easier to apply than agroforestry which results in some farmers who will not opt for agroforestry. However, agroforestry has a high storage potential (Cardinael et al. 2018; Pardon et al. 2017). In result-based contracts, agroforestry should therefore yield the highest financial returns.

The instrument of carbon credits can have a high score for acceptability, depending on contract form. There are three possibilities for contracts: result-based, action-based and hybrid. With action based contracts, a farmer has the certainty of getting paid after implementation, while with result based credits the payment depends on the carbon storage result (Annys et al. 2022). A disadvantage with result-based credits is that farmers who have already made efforts in the past to store carbon are not rewarded with this system because the baseline of carbon measurement is already high. Hybrid payments give certainty of an amount of payment after correct implementation and depending of the results a bonus is possible. The monitoring and control of these measures are seen as annoying but necessary by farmers. Farmers experience an overload of administrative obligations in Flanders. So the monitoring part done by farmers must be kept very simple: e.g. collecting photos and data on the field with a mobile app.

To make the voluntary carbon credits feasible for farmers and sponsors, a proper infrastructure to trade and a clear demand coming from individuals and companies is necessary. Currently, there are many starting intermediary initiatives, each with their own type of contracts and rules. There is no regulatory framework yet but the political will to support this credit system is present. Another important issue is that it is not clear whether there is a proper demand from individuals and companies to use this system. Additionally, it is still hard for farmers and sponsors to find a proper payment and monitoring mechanism. Once the market is more established, it will be easier for farmers to sign in for such a program.

Community-based incentives

Besides cooperation among farmers and between farmers and chain actors, cooperation with citizens (e.g. a CSA or a farmer-citizen cooperative) is an option. Some consumers want to connect to the origin of their food. The Covid-19 crisis increased the interest of citizens in agriculture (Bachman et al. 2021; Coopmans et al. 2021) and especially short-supply chain selling. There is a drive towards a fairer society, both ecologically and socio-economically: a farmer must be paid fairly (Oke et al. 2020). However, not every farmer is suited to enter into such partnerships. It demands to give up some independency and autonomy, values that many farmers consider important (Stock and Forney 2014). Other requirements are an open-mind, strong communication and negotiation skills and to be able to deal with large heterogeneous groups of people. Collaborations between farmers and citizens, between farmers themselves or with chain actors are also not exclusive to agriculture with agroforestry.

Partnerships such as CSAs and especially farmer-citizen cooperatives can help to increase the acceptability of agroforestry for farmers. After all, investments are made together so that the farmer does not have to bear the (whole) financial risk alone (Diekmann and Theuvsen 2019; Samoggia et al. 2019). This offers opportunities for entrants, farmers without land and/or large capital. A farmer-citizen cooperation can contribute to the awareness and publicity about sustainable agriculture and agroforestry. Another advantage that farmer-citizen partnerships offer is having a network around the farmer. The farmer can ask for commitment from his/her cooperators who have various talents and thus can help with e.g. accounting, communication or legal issues. Other collaborations, such as between a farmer and a tree specialist, can also provide a solution for specific knowledge that the farmer lacks. However, consulting with a large group of citizens and/or other farmers means partially losing the autonomy, which can cause struggles and deter some farmers from joining a farmer-citizen cooperative.

Regarding feasibility of farmer-citizen initiatives, it is sometimes difficult for farmer-citizen cooperatives to recruit new cooperates. The relatively high entry cost could be a barrier. The commitment required can both attract and deter. CSA companies have less difficulty finding members for their subscriptions. This model is easier for many to try out and requires less commitment. Pomona, a cooperative farm in Flanders, is working to make their model more accessible: the entry cost has been lowered and it is now possible to try out the concept for a year.

Discussion

There are clear differences between the instrument categories in terms of suitability, acceptability and feasibility. This is first related to the values being pursued and thus the target group/profile that an instrument will attract. Community based incentives focus on fairness, equality, health and social connection, payment for ecosystem services on ecological and landscape values, payment for products on a more productivist philosophy and government based incentives on both production and ecology. An example of two categories that attract different farmer profiles are the community based incentives and the payment for products. In the latter, a farmer maintains autonomy but bears investment risks alone, whereas, in the former, a farmer has to give up some of his autonomy in but can reduce financial risk. Hence, different incentives will attract different profiles of farmers. Nonetheless, a combination of incentives can also provide added value for the same farmer. For example, a farmer who sells his agroforestry products through short chain supply and also participates in a voluntary carbon credit system can use this system in his marketing strategy.

Some categories will require a greater transformation of the farm system than others and thus they could be less attractive to some farmers. Community based incentives and the category payment for ecosystem services require more system thinking and a holistic view for a transformation to an agroecological farm. Community based farming goes further in terms of transformation by bringing agroecology to the citizens and involving them. The latter is also relatively new, with a number of challenges at its start-up. Finding customers willing to pay in advance for a harvest is usually successful, especially in more populated areas, but finding real shareholders remains difficult and the long-term commitment can cause some reluctance on both sides. The category of government based incentives does not usually encourage a complete transformation but is rather seen as a push in the right direction, an incremental measure. With the instruments payment for products, including the label and short chain initiatives, no major transformation is expected but rather a reorientation on the market. An important issue is that most identified incentives rely on values and/or products that are not exclusively delivered by agroforestry systems, and thus the success of these incentives to stimulate agroforestry specifically is uncertain. Only the subsidy and other government support for agroforestry is exclusive to agroforestry.

A major finding is that the potential success of these initiatives depends on its acceptability among the stakeholders involved. Whereas it is clear that a diversity of incentives is more likely to attract different profiles and types of stakeholders, the success of each specific incentive depends on its design and on the extent to which it matches the preferences of the stakeholders involved. First, there is the lack of knowledge about consumer preferences and the willingness of consumers to pay for products from agroforestry. A better understanding of consumer awareness of agroforestry and how this awareness can be stimulated is needed (Gao et al. 2014; Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2018; Rois-Díaz et al. 2017). Second, regarding farmer-citizen partnerships as an instrument to support agroforestry, there are questions about consumer preferences for the different design characteristics of these forms of collaboration. Third, it is important to look at the preferences of farmers. For instance, Dumbrell et al. (2016) found that farmers in Australia consider planting trees as the least attractable carbon farming practice. In Europe, benefits such as biodiversity increase, animal welfare, more diverse income and landscape aesthetics are recognised but the increase in labour, complexity and costs for management and administration are obstacles to adopt agroforestry (García de Jalón et al. 2018). Fourth, it is not always clear whether there is societal support for agroforestry and what the preferences of citizens are. In Germany, research has already been carried out into the willingness of citizens to spend tax money on subsidies for agroforestry. A majority of 65% was willing to do so (Otter and Langenberg 2020). In the US, Ureta et al. (2022) found that the willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife habitat improvement was higher than for water quality improvement. In turn, research on consumer preferences in the context of forest ecosystems in southern Europe indicated higher WTP for carbon sequestration and recreation over biodiversity and landscape aesthetics (Gatto et al. 2014). Fifth, the preferences of other actors (suppliers, processors, etc.) around these instruments should not be forgotten. In the most clear example related to voluntary carbon credits, uniformity regarding these systems is lacking at the moment (Wongpiyabovorn et al. 2022) and it is unclear which characteristics influence companies’ preferences for them.

From the above, focusing on one type of incentive or strategy makes no sense, a systemic approach is needed (de Streel and Baudry 2022). Hence, to stimulate a larger number of – often very heterogeneous – farmers, focusing on different types of incentives can be complementary and reinforcing. Some incentives are likely to remain a niche, attracting low numbers of farmers, which does not mean that developing such incentives is not relevant. Others, when they are designed well, based on evidence regarding the preferences of different stakeholders, could have the potential to attract larger numbers of farmers. Each of the four categories incentives has a different potential to encourage farmers to adopt agroforestry. Payment for products and community-based instruments are expected to stimulate some individual farmers, but of the four categories they are least likely to bring a major transition to agroforestry. There is consumer demand for sustainable products (Li and Kallas 2021), but consumers are not yet familiar with agroforestry, which means there is not yet much demand for agroforestry products. Agroforestry is still too specific for consumers. Consequently, farmers can make their farms more sustainable in a less complex way than with agroforestry so they opt less for a bigger transformation with agroforestry. Government-based incentives are certainly still needed in the short term and are also guaranteed in the new subsidy scheme, which makes it score good on acceptability and feasibility. Most potential is expected from payment for ecosystem services, especially for climate-related ones such as carbon sequestration. This instrument performs well in terms of suitability, acceptability, and feasibility. It aligns with the vision of the new CAP as part of a broader transformation (suitability). Result-based and hybrid based payment systems could potentially lead to a promising enumeration for carbon sequestration via agroforestry (acceptability). Moreover, there is a considerable interest in carbon credits, with various emerging initiatives. The only aspect that needs improvement is government framing, but efforts are underway to address this (feasibility).

Compared to the first phase of data collection, it can be noted that during the second phase of data collection, some incentives have already become more concrete such as the carbon farming option where currently some farmers are starting with in Flanders. Other incentives such as governmental support through a subsidy are currently being adjusted to become more attractive through more flexibility. Interest in community initiatives is expanding. However, other ideas mooted in the first phase such as an agroforestry label have not yet taken off. But overall, a clear progress in development of economic incentives is thus seen.

Conclusion

This paper reported on a study which was carried out over seven years, roughly coinciding with the pioneer stage of agroforestry systems in Flanders, with the aim to identify potential economic incentives to stimulate agroforestry adoption by farmers and to assess their potential effectiveness and the related bottlenecks. Four types of incentives were identified, being (1) government based; (2) payment for agroforestry products; (3) payment for ecosystem services; and (4) community based incentives. Each of these types have advantages and disadvantages related to their potential to stimulate agroforestry adoption, and also differ in the scale with which they could stimulate farmers to adopt agroforestry. As long as consumers are not more familiar with agroforestry and demand for agroforestry products specifically does not increase, payment for product and community-based incentives are not expected to provide the major transition to agroforestry. The most potential is expected from payment for ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration which is receiving increasing attention, is in line with European Commission’s vision on sustainable agriculture and where already initiatives are starting up to renumerate farmers for this kind of services. Government-based initiatives remain important in the short term to create an agroforestry friendly environment. To make the best use of the instruments studied, there is a general need for initiatives that make agroforestry known to the general public. Comparison between the two data collection periods also shows that progress has already been made in the development of economic incentives for agroforestry. In order to further design and implement these incentives, more insights regarding the preferences of a variety of stakeholders, especially farmers, consumers and citizens, is of paramount importance to design effective instruments and business models.