New Forests

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Can market-based agroforestry germplasm supply systems meet the needs of forest landscape restoration?

Review
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

By late 2017, governments had pledged more than 140 M ha to the global forest landscape restoration (FLR) agenda. Although much FLR will consist of conventional ecological restoration, a substantial proportion will involve agroforestry. The question therefore arises of how the agroforestry germplasm needs of FLR can be met, particularly given its emphasis on species diversity. This paper examines the role of market-based germplasm supply systems. A simple analytic framework is presented, and key demand- and supply-related factors are described. It is suggested that seedling supply and demand at market prices will not necessarily coincide with needs of all farmers nor with the requirements of a particular restoration program, and that market-based germplasm supply systems will therefore often not meet the needs of restoration programs. Implications of these findings are then identified and appropriate responses are suggested. These include those intended to produce shifts in demand or supply curves through addressing the underlying enabling environment, and direct subsidies to tree planting stock prices.

Keywords

Tree seedling demand Reforestation Land rehabilitation Private nurseries Subsidized plant distribution 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the support of CGIAR Fund Donors to the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA), under which the research reported here was carried out. A full list of CGIAR Fund Donors is available at http://www.cgiar.org/about-us/our-funders/. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) under the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID) KNOWFOR partnership. We also thank Steve Franzel (ICRAF), Jens-Peter Lillesø (University of Copenhagen), James Roshetko (ICRAF), and two anonymous reviewers; their perceptive reviews greatly improved the final version.

References

  1. Barbosa LM, Barbosa JM, Barbosa KC, Plaza AP (2003) Recuperação florestal com espécies nativas no estado de São Paulo: pesquisas apontam mudanças necessárias. Florestar Estatístico 6:28–34Google Scholar
  2. Barbosa LM, Parajara FC, Teixeira EE, Barbosa TC, Barbosa KC, Santos Júnior NA, Barbosa JM (2009) Diagnóstico sobre producão de sementes e mudas de espécies florestais nativas do Estado de São Paulo. Informativo Abrates 12:527Google Scholar
  3. Bonn Challenge (2017) The challenge. Bonn Challenge. http://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge. Accessed 18 Mar 2017
  4. Brancalion PHS, Rodrigues RR, Gandolfi S, Kageyama PY, Nave AG, Gandara FB, Barbosa LM, Tabarelli M (2010) Instrumentos legais podem contribuir para a restauração de florestas tropicais biodiversas. Revista Árvore 34:455–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broadhurst LM, Jones TA, Smith FS, North T, Guja L (2016) Maximizing seed resources for restoration in an uncertain future. Bioscience 66:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brockington JD, Harris IM, Brook RM (2016) Beyond the project cycle: a medium-term evaluation of agroforestry adoption and diffusion in a south Indian village. Agrofor Syst 90:489–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campos-Filho EM, Da Costa JNMN, De Sousa OL, Junqueira RGP (2013) Mechanized direct-seeding of native forests in Xingu, Central Brazil. J Sustain For 32:702–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carandang WM, Tolentino EL, Roshetko JM (2006) Smalholder tree nursery operations in southern Philippines—supporting mechanisms for timber tree domestication. For Trees livelihoods 16:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castro C, Baeza O, Corea E, Cornelius JP (1994) Germinación, repique y cuidado en el vivero de Eucalytpus deglupta. Boletín Mejoramiento Genético y Semillas Forestales (Costa Rica) 8:7–8Google Scholar
  10. Catacutan D, Bertomeu M, Arbes L, Duque C, Butra N (2008) Fluctuating fortunes of a collective Enterprise: the case of the Agroforestry Tree Seeds Association of Lantapan (ATSAL) in the Philippines. Small-scale For 7:353–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caveness FA, Kurtz WB (1993) Agroforestry adoption and risk perception by farmers in Senegal. Agrofor Syst 21:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coe R, Sinclair F, Barrios E (2014) Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’ development. Curr Opin Env Sust 6:73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colombia, Ministerio del Ambiente (2015) Plan Nacional de Restauración: restauración ecológica, rehabilitación y recuperación de áreas disturbadas. Government of Colombia, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornelius JP (1994) Heritabilities and additive genetic coefficients of variation in forest trees. Can J For Res 24:372–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornelius JP, Mesén JF, Ohashi S, Ugarte-Guerra LJ, Wightman KE (2010) Smallholder production of agroforestry germplasm: experiences and lessons from Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru. For Trees Livelihoods 19:201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cromwell E, Brodie A, with Southern A (1996) Germplasm for multipurpose trees: access and utility in small-farm communities. ODI Research Study. ODI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Degrande A, Tadjo P, Takout Takoutsing B, Asaah E, Tsobeng A, Tchoundjeu Z (2013) Getting trees into farmers’ fields: success of rural nurseries in distributing high quality planting material in Cameroon. Small-scale For 12:403–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franzel S, Coe R, Cooper P, Place F, Scherr S (2001) Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in sub-Saharan Africa. Agr Syst 69(2001):37–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graudal L, Lillesø JPB (2007) Experiences and future prospects for tree seed supply in agricultural development support—based on lessons learnt in Danida supported programmes 1965–2005. Danida working paper—April 2007. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Copenhagen. http://static-curis.ku.dk/portal/files/33237005/Experienceandfutureprospects.pdf. Accessed 4 Sept 2017
  20. Gregorio NO, Harrison S, Herbohn J (2008) Enhancing tree seedling supply to smallholders in Leyte Province, Philippines: an evaluation of the production system of government nursery sector and support to smallholder tree farmers. Small-scale For 7:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gregorio N, Herbohn J, Harrison S, Pasa A, Ferraren A (2017) Regulating the quality of seedlings for forest restoration: lessons from the national greening program in the Philippines. Small-scale For 16:83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison S, Gregorio N, Herbohn J (2008) A critical overview of forestry seedling production policies and practices in relation to smallholder forestry in developing countries. Small-scale For 7:207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. He J, Yang H, Jamnadass R, Xu J, Yang Y (2012) Decentralization of tree seedling supply systems for afforestation in the west of Yunnan Province, China. Small-scale For (2012) 11:147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoang TL, Roshetko JM, Catacutan D, Thinh LD (2015) A review of policy constraints and opportunities for the sustainable delivery of quality fruit tree germplasm in Vietnam. Int J Agric Innov Res 4:536–543Google Scholar
  25. Hoch L, Pokorny B, de Jong W (2009) Do smallholders in the Amazon grow trees? Int For Rev 11:1–12Google Scholar
  26. INFOFLR (2017) Rwanda. IUCN. http://infoflr.org/countries/rwanda#target. Accessed 10 Mar 2017
  27. IUCN and WRI (2014) A guide to the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM): assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities at the national or sub-national level. Working paper (Road-test edition). IUCN. GlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaenicke H (1999) Good tree nursery practices: practical guidelines for research nurseries. ICRAF, Nairobi. https://vtcommunityforestry.org/sites/default/files/pictures/tree-nursery-practices-eng.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 17
  29. Kakuru OV, Doreen M, Wilson M (2014) Adoption of on-farm tree planting in Kibaale District, western Uganda. J Sustain For 33:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laestadius L, Buckingham K, Maginnis S, Saint-Laurent C (2015) Before Bonn and beyond: the history and future of forest landscape restoration. Unasylva 66:11–18Google Scholar
  31. Lengkeek AG, Jaenicke H, Dawson IK (2004) Genetic bottlenecks in agroforestry systems: results of tree nursery surveys in East Africa. Agrofor Syst 63:149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lillesø JPB, Graudal L, Moestrup S, Kjær ED, Kindt R, Mbora A, Dawson WE, Muriuki J, Ræbild A, Jamnadass R (2011) Innovation in input supply systems in smallholder agroforestry: seed sources, supply chains and support systems. Agrofor Syst 83:347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lillesø JPB, Harwood C, Derero A, Graudal L, Roshetko JM, Kindt R, Moestrup S, Omondi WO, Holtne N, Mbora A, van Breugel P, Dawson IK, Jamnadass R, Egelyng H (2017) Why institutional environments for agroforestry seed systems matter. Dev Policy Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12233 Google Scholar
  34. Mansourian S, Vallauri D, Dudley N (eds) (2005) Forest restoration in landscapes. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Mercado AR, Duque-Piñon C (2008) Tree seedling production systems in northern Mindanao, Philippines. Small-scale For 7:225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miccolis A, Mongeli Peneireiro F, Rodrigues Marques H, Mascia Vieira DL, Francia Arco-Verde M, Rigon Hoffmann M, Rehder T, Barbosa Pereira AV (2016) Restauração ecológica com sistemas agroflorestais: como conciliar conservação com produção. Opções para cerrado e caatinga. Instituto Sociedade, População e Natureza, ISPN/Centro Internacional de Pesquisa Agroflorestal (ICRAF). BrasiliaGoogle Scholar
  37. Moreira da Silva AP, Rodrigues Marques H, Nascente dos Santos TVM, Cordeiro Teixeira AM, Ferreira Luciano MS, Rosa Sambuichi RH (2015) Diagnóstico da produção de mudas florestais nativas no Brasil. Relatório de Pesquisa. IPEA, IPEAGoogle Scholar
  38. Moreira da Silva AP, Schweizer D, Rodrigues Marques H, Cordeiro Teixeira AM, Nascente dos Santos TVM, Sambuichi RHR, Badari CG, Gaudare U, Brancalion PHS (2016) Can current native tree seedling production and infrastructure meet an increasing forest restoration demand in Brazil? Restor Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12470 Google Scholar
  39. Murray GF, Bannister ME (2004) Peasants, agroforesters, and anthropologists: a 20-year venture in income-generating trees and hedgerows in Haiti. Agrofor Syst 61:383Google Scholar
  40. Namoto M, Likoswe MG (2007) Case studies of nurseries in Malawi. Forest and landscape. Working Paper no. 20. University of Copenhagen, HørsholmGoogle Scholar
  41. Oduol JBA, Franzel S (2014) Assessing market potential of agroforestry tree seedlings in western Kenya. Small-scale For 13:281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Osemeobo GJ (1987) Smallholder farmers and forestry development: a study of rural land-use in Bendel, Nigeria. Agr Syst 24:31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perkins DH, Radelet S, Snodgrass DR, Gillis M, Roemer M (2001) Economics of development, 5th edn. WW Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Purnomosidhi P, Roshetko JM (2012) Legalitas produksi bibit tanaman hortikultura dari masyarakat (Legality of horticultural seedling production from smalholder farmers). Prosiding Seminar Nasional Perhimpunan Hortikultura Indonesia, Buku 3 Tanaman Hias, Kebjakan Social and Ekonomi. (National Horticulture Symposium Proceeding, Book 3 Ornamental and Medicinal Species, Social and Economic Studies), pp 1407–1418Google Scholar
  45. Roshetko JM, Mulawarman, Dianarto A (2008) Tree seed procurement–diffusion pathways in Wonogiri and Ponorogo, Java. Small-scale For 7:333–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roshetko JM, Dawson IK, Urquiola J, Lasco RD, Leimona B, Weber JC, Bozzano M, Lillesø JPB, Graudal L, Jamnadass R (2017) To what extent are genetic resources considered in environmental service provision? A case study based on trees, carbon sequestration and the Clean Development Mechanism. Clim Dev.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1334620 Google Scholar
  47. Schroth G, da Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AN (2004) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. Simons AJ, MacQueen DJ, Stewart JL (1994) Strategic concepts in the domestication of non-industrial trees. In: Leakey RRB, Newton AC (eds) Tropical trees: the potential for domestication and the rebuilding of forest resources. HMSO, London, pp 91–102Google Scholar
  49. Slator NJ, Callister AN, Nichols JD (2013) Mechanical but not physical dormancy is a cause of poor germination in teak (Tectona grandis L.f.). New For 44:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Takoutsing B, Tchoundjeu Z, Degrande A, Asaah E, Gyu A, Nkeumoe F, Tsobeng A (2014) Assessing the quality of seedlings in small-scale nurseries in the highlands of Cameroon: the use of growth characteristics and quality thresholds as indicators. Small-scale For 13:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. UNDP (United Nations Development Program) (2017) Financing solutions for sustainable development. http://www.undp.org/content/sdfinance/en/home/solutions/impact-investment.html Accessed 11 Dec 2017
  52. Walters BB, Sabogal C, Snook LK, de Almeida E (2005) Constraints and opportunities for better silvicultural practice in tropical forestry: an interdisciplinary approach. For Ecol Manag 209:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weber JC, Sotelo Montes C, Vidaurre H, Dawson IK, Simons AJ (2001) Participatory domestication of agroforestry trees: an example from the Peruvian Amazon. Dev Pract 11:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. World Agroforestry Centre (2013) Strategy 2013–2022: transforming lives and landscapes with trees. World Agroforestry Centre, NairobiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Office for Latin AmericaWorld Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)Lima 12Peru
  2. 2.College of Science and EngineeringJames Cook UniversityCairnsAustralia
  3. 3.Brazil Country OfficeWorld Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)BrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations