Addressing farmer-perceptions and legal constraints to promote agroforestry in Germany

  • Penka Tsonkova
  • Jaconette Mirck
  • Christian Böhm
  • Bettina Fütz
Article

Abstract

Agroforestry is receiving increasing attention in Germany because of its capacity to address some of the negative consequences of intensive agriculture. However the actual uptake and maintenance of agroforestry by farmers remains low. The aim of this study was to identify the opportunities and obstacles to agroforestry in Germany and to identify potential measures which could address the obstacles and increase agroforestry adoption. Qualitative interviews with 32 farmers indicated that the legal framework and administrative burden associated with agroforestry in Germany was a major obstacle. The farmers recognised that agroforestry provided environmental benefits, but these do not always increase farm profitability. Agroforestry was identified as a viable alternative to conventional farming systems, especially in less productive areas, not profitable when managed in a conventional way. To enhance the implementation of agroforestry the simplification of the legal framework is crucial. Modern agroforestry should be better recognized by existing policy measures providing payments for environmentally friendly farming. Ultimately, an integrated approach for environmental benefits and production objectives is required, which is based on rewarding farmers for providing ecosystem services (ESs) and a stronger public involvement in sustainable land use practices. Rewarding farmers for ESs could increase the interest in agroforestry in highly productive areas, enhancing sustainable land use in the long term.

Keywords

Barriers for agroforestry Ecosystem services Legal framework Market benefits Policy measures 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The AGFORWARD Project (Grant Agreement No. 613520) is co-funded by the European Commission, within the 7th Framework Programme of RTD. The views and opinions expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. The AUFWERTEN Project (Reference No. 033L129AN) is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). We thank all farmers who dedicated part of their valuable time to the interviews.

References

  1. Alam M, Olivier A, Paquette A, Dupras J, Revéret J-P, Messier C (2014) A general framework for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services of tree-based intercropping systems. Agrofor Syst 88:679–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzer F, Schulz D (2015) Umweltbelastende Stoffeinträge aus der Landwirtschaft – Möglichkeiten und Maßnahmen zu ihrer Minderung in der konventionellen Landwirtschaft und im ökologischen Landbau. UBA-Hintergrund, März 2015. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau, p 31Google Scholar
  3. Batáry P, Dicks LV, Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2015) The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 29:1006–1016CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Baudry J, Bunce RGH, Burel F (2000) Hedgerows: an international perspective on their origin, function and management. J Environ Manag 60:7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BMEL – Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (2015) Umsetzung der EU-Agrarreform in Deutschland – Ausgabe 2015. BMEL, Berlin, p 124Google Scholar
  6. Böhm C (2017) Erarbeitung einer kontrollfähigen Definition für Agroforstschläge. Eine Initiative der Innovationsgruppe AUFWERTEN in Zusammenarbeit mit der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Agroforst Deutschland. http://agroforst-info.de/rechtliche-und-politische-rahmenbedingungen. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  7. Böhm C, Quinkenstein A, Freese D (2012) Vergleichende Betrachtung des Agrarholz- und Energiemaisanbaus aus Sicht des Bodenschutzes. Bodenschutz 2:36–43Google Scholar
  8. Böhm C, Kanzler M, Freese D (2014) Wind speed reductions as influenced by woody hedgerows grown for biomass in short rotation alley cropping systems in Germany. Agrofor Syst 88:579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Böhm C, Tsonkova P, Zehlius-Eckert W (2017a) Wie können Agroforstsysteme praktikabel in das deutsche Agrarförderrecht eingebunden werden? In: Böhm C (ed) Bäume in der Land(wirt)schaft – von der Theorie in die Praxis Agroforstsysteme: mit Beiträgen des 5. Forums Agroforstsysteme 30.11. bis 01.12.2016 in Senftenberg (OT Brieske), Cottbus, p 7–16Google Scholar
  10. Böhm C, Tsonkova P, Albrecht E, Zehlius-Eckert W (2017b) Zur Notwendigkeit einer kontrollfähigen Definition für Agroforstschläge. Agrar Umweltr 1:7–12Google Scholar
  11. Briggs S (2012) Agroforestry: a new approach to increasing farm production. A Nuffield Farming Scholarships Trust report. NFU Mutual Charitable Trust, p 82Google Scholar
  12. Burgess PJ, Crous-Duran J, den Herder M et al (2015) AGFORWARD Project Periodic Report: January to December 2014. Cranfield University: AGFORWARD, p 95Google Scholar
  13. Dahl S (2016) Ökologische Vorrangsflächen in der Landwirtschaft (2016) Statistische Monatshefte Niedersachsen 9/2016. Landesamt für Statistik Niedersachsen, Hannover, pp 518–522Google Scholar
  14. DBV Deutscher Bauernverband (2016) Fakten zum Greening. Landwirte leisten Mehrwert für Natur und Umwelt, Berlin, p 12Google Scholar
  15. EC (2016) Review of greening after one year. Commission staff working document. SWD(2016) 218 final. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct-support/pdf/2016-staff-working-document-greening_en.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2017
  16. Eichhorn MP, Paris P, Herzog F et al (2006) Silvoarable systems in Europe—past, present and future prospects. Agrofor Syst 67:29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. García de Jalón S, Burgess PJ, Graves A et al (2017) How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects among stakeholders. Agrofor Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0116-3 Google Scholar
  18. Graves AR, Burgess PJ, Liagre F et al (2009) Farmer perceptions of silvoarable systems in seven European countries. In: Rigueiro-Rodríguez A, McAdam JH, Mosquera-Losada MR (eds) Agroforestry in Europe: current status and future prospects. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 67–88Google Scholar
  19. Graves AR, Morris J, Deeks LK, Rickson RJ, Kibblewhite MG, Harris JA, Farewell TS, Truckle I (2015) The total costs of soil degradation in England and Wales. Ecol Econ 119:399–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graves AR, Burgess PJ, Liagre F, Dupraz C (2017) Farmer perception of benefits, constraints and opportunities for silvoarable systems: preliminary insights from Bedfordshire, England. Outlook Agric 46:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grünewald H, Brandt BKV, Schneider BU, Benz O, Kendzia G, Hüttl RF (2007) Agroforestry systems for the production of woody biomass for energy transformation purposes. Ecol Eng 29:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herzog F (1998) Streuobst: a traditional agroforestry system as a model for agro-forestry development in temperate Europe. Agrofor Syst 42:61–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herzog F (2000) The importance of perennial trees for the balance of northern European agricultural landscapes. Unasylva 200(51):42–48Google Scholar
  24. Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayring P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. 11. Aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage. Beltz Verlag Weinheim und Basel, p 144Google Scholar
  26. Meyer C, Reutter M, Matzdorf B, Sattler C, Schomers S (2015) Design rules for successful governmental payments for ecosystem services: taking agri-environmental measures in Germany as an example. J Environ Manag 157:146–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Millard E (2011) Incorporating agroforestry approaches into commodity value chains. Environ Manag 48:365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moreno G, Aviron S, Berg S et al (2017) Agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value in Europe: provision of commercial goods and other ecosystem services. Agrofor Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0126-1 Google Scholar
  29. Morhart CD, Douglas GC, Dupraz C et al (2014) Alley coppice—a new system with ancient roots. Ann For Sci 71:527–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mosquera-Losada MR, Santiago Freijanes JJ, Pisanelli A et al (2016) Extent and success of current policy measures to promote agroforestry across Europe. Deliverable 8.23 for EU FP7 Research Project: AGFORWARD 613520 (8 December 2016)Google Scholar
  31. Mosquera-Losada MR, Santiago Freijanes JJ, Pisanelli A et al (2017) Deliverable 8.24: how can policy support the appropriate development and uptake of agroforestry in Europe? 7 September 2017Google Scholar
  32. Nahm M, Morhart C, Spiecker H, Sauter UH (2014) Agroforst ganz am Rand. Nat Landsch 46:377–381Google Scholar
  33. Nerlich K, Graeff-Hönninger S, Claupein W (2013) Agroforestry in Europe: a review of the disappearance of traditional systems and development of modern agroforestry practices, with emphasis on experiences in Germany. Agrofor Syst 87:475–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pisanelli A, Perali A, Paris P (2012) Potentialities and uncertainties of novel agroforestry systems in the European C.A.P.: farmers’ and professionals’ perspectives in Italy. L’Ital For e Mont 67:289–297Google Scholar
  35. Porter J, Costanza R, Sandhu H, Sigsgaard L, Wratten S (2009) The value of producing food, energy and ecosystem services within an agro-ecosystem. Ambio 38:186–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Reeg T (2011) Agroforestry systems as land use alternatives in Germany? A comparison with approaches taken in other countries. Outlook Agric 40:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reeg T, Hampel J, Hohlfeld F, Mathiak G, Rusdea E (2009) Agroforstsysteme aus Sicht des Naturschutzes. In: Reeg T, Bemmann A, Konold W, Murach D, Spiecker H (eds) Anbau und Nutzung von Bäumen auf Landwirtschaftlichen Flächen. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, pp 301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rois-Díaz M, Lovrić N, Lovrić M et al (2017) Farmers’ reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: evidence from multiple case-studies across Europe. Agrofor Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0139-9 Google Scholar
  39. Sänn A, Pauly J (2017) Gütesiegel in der Landwirtschaft – eine Bestandsaufnahme der Preiszahlungsbereitschaft. In: Böhm C (ed) Bäume in der Land(wirt)schaft – von der Theorie in die Praxis Agroforstsysteme: mit Beiträgen des 5. Forums Agroforstsysteme 30.11. bis 01.12.2016 in Senftenberg (OT Brieske), Cottbus, p 51–65Google Scholar
  40. Smith J, Pearce BD, Wolfe MS (2012) A European perspective for developing modern multifunctional agroforestry systems for sustainable intensification. Renew Agric Food Syst 27:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tsonkova P, Böhm C, Quinkenstein A, Freese D (2012) Ecological benefits provided by alley cropping systems for production of woody biomass in the temperate region: a review. Agrofor Syst 85:133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsonkova P, Mirck J, Böhm C, Fütz B, Freese D (2016) The lack of a clear definition of agroforestry hinders its acceptance in Germany. In: 3rd European agroforestry conference—farmers’ testimonies across Europe, Montpellier, 23–25 May 2016, p 259–262Google Scholar
  43. Tzilivakis J, Warner DJ, Green A, Lewis KA (2015) Guidance and tool to support farmers in taking aware decisions on Ecological Focus Areas. Final report for Project JRC/IPR/2014/H.4/0022/NC. Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, p 293Google Scholar
  44. Unseld R, Reppin N, Eckstein K, Zehlius-Eckert W, Hoffmann H, Huber T (2011) Leitfaden Agroforstsysteme Möglichkeiten zur naturschutzgerechten Etablierung von Agroforstsystemen. Gefördert durch Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), p 48Google Scholar
  45. van Vooren L, Reubens B, Broekx S, Pardon P, Reheul D, van Winsen F, Verheyen K, Wauters E, Lauwers L (2016) Greening and producing: an economic assessment framework for integrating trees in cropping systems. Agric Syst 148:44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zehlius-Eckert W (2017) Moderne Agroforstsysteme als Option für die produktionsintegrierte Kompensation (PIK) – Potenzial, aktuelle Situation und Verbesserungsvorschläge). In: Böhm C (ed) Bäume in der Land(wirt)schaft – von der Theorie in die Praxis Agroforstsysteme: mit Beiträgen des 5. Forums Agroforstsysteme 30.11. bis 01.12.2016 in Senftenberg (OT Brieske), Cottbus, p 25–35Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Soil Protection and RecultivationBrandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-SenftenbergCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations