Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations (UN) are at the heart of the global development agenda. This chapter examines the role of agroforestry research and development (R&D) in light of the MDGs. It reviews some of the ways in which agroforestry is substantively assisting to achieve the goals and discusses how the agenda can be realigned to further increase its effectiveness in helping developing countries to meet their MDG targets. Promising agroforestry pathways to increase on-farm food production and income contribute to the first MDG, which aims to cut the number of hungry and desperately poor by at least half by 2015. Such pathways include fertilizer tree systems for smallholders with limited access to adequate crop nutrients, and expanded tree cropping and improved tree product processing and marketing. These advances can also help address lack of enterprise opportunities on small-scale farms, inequitable returns to small-scale farmers (especially women), child malnutrition, and national tree-product deficits (especially timber). The rate of return to investment in research on tree crops is quite high (88%); but enterprise development and enhancement of tree-product marketing has been badly neglected. The products, processing, and marketing of tree products and services, through tree domestication and the commercialization of their products is a new frontier for agroforestry R&D. A major role for agroforestry also is emerging in the domain of environmental services. This entails the development of mechanisms to reward the rural poor for the environmental services such as watershed protection and carbon sequestration that they provide to society. Agroforestry R&D is contributing to virtually all of the MDGs. But recognition for that role must be won by ensuring that more developing countries have national agroforestry strategies, and that agroforestry is a recognized part of their programs to achieve the MDGs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alston J.M. and Pardey P.G. 2001. Attribution and other problems in assessing the returns to agricultural R&D. Agr Econ 25: 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASB. 2002. Balancing rainforest conservation and development. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellefontaine R., Petit S., Pain-Orcet M., Deleporte P. and Bertault J. 2002. Trees Outside Forests: Towards Better Awareness. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. 216 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bread for the World Institute. 2003. Agriculture in the Global Economy. Bread for the World Institute, Washington, DC. 164 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • CGIAR. 2000. A Food Secure World For All. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research & Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. 50 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay D. 1996. Fighting an uphill battle: Population pressure and declining land productivity in Rwanda. Michigan State University International Development Working Paper 58: 2 pp.

  • Cunningham A.B., Scherr S.J. and McNeeley J.A. 2002. Matrix Matters: Biodiversity Research for Rural Landscape Mosaics. CIFOR and ICRAF, Bogor and Nairobi. 34 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon J., Gulliver A., Gibbon D. (eds) 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty. Food and Agricdulture Organization, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2001. State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. http://www.fao.org/docrep/x8200e/x8200e00.htm.

  • FAO. n.d. Mobilizing the Political Will and Resources to Banish World Hunger. Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome. 79 pp.

  • Franzel S., Cooper P., Denning G. and Eade D. 2002. Development and Agroforestry: Scaling Up the Impacts of Research. Oxfam, Oxford. 202 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzel S., Denning G.L., Lilisøe J.P., and Mercado A.R. Jr. 2004. Scaling up the impact of agroforestry: Lessons from three sites in Africa and Asia (This volume).

  • Garrity D.P., Amoroso V.B., Koffa S., Catacutan D., Buenavista G., Fay P. and Dar W.D. 2003. Landcare on the poverty-protection interface in an Asian watershed. pp. 195–210. In: Campbell B.M. and Sayer J.A. (eds), Integrated Natural Resource Management: Linking Productivity, the Environment, and Development. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmgren P., Masakha E.J., and Sjoholm H. 1994. Not all African land is being degraded: a recent survey of trees on farms in Kenya reveals rapidly increasing forest resources. Ambio 23: 390–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar B.M. and Nair P.K.R. 2004. The enigma of tropical homegardens (This volume).

  • Leakey R.R.B. and Newton A.C. 1994. Domestication of 'Cinderella' species as the start of a woody-plant revolution. pp. 3–5. In: Leakey R.R.B. and Newton A.C. (eds), Tropical Trees: Potential for Domestication and the Rebuilding of Forest Resources. HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeely J.A. 2004. Nature vs. Nurture: Managing Relationships Between Forests, Agroforestry and Wild Biodiversity (This volume).

  • McNeely J. and Scherr S. 2003. Ecoagriculture: Strategies to Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington DC. 323 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehra R. and Gammage S. 1999. Trends, countertrends and gaps in women's employment. World Dev 27(3): 538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor J. 2001. Reducing poverty, buffering economic shocks-Agriculture and the non-tradable economy. Background Paper for Roles of Agriculture Project. Rome: FAO. 2 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercado A.R., Patindol M. and Garrity D.P. 2001. The Landcare experience in the Philippines: technical and institutional innovations for conservation farming. Dev in Practice 11: 495–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michon G., de Foresta H., and Levang P. 1995. Strategies agroforestieres paysannes at developpement durable: les agroforets a dammar de Sumatra. Natures, Sciences, Societes 3: 207–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montagnini F. and Nair P.K.R. 2004. Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforest systems (This volume).

  • Murniati, Garrity D.P. and Gintings A.N. 2001. The contribution of Agroforestry systems to reducing farmers' dependence on the resources of adjacent national parks: a case study from Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforest Syst 52: 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mushati P., Gregson S., Mlilo M., Zvidzai C. and Nyamukapa C. 2003. Adult mortality and erosion of household viability in AIDS-afflicted towns, estates and villages in eastern Zimbabwe. Paper presented at the Scientific Meeting on Empirical Evidence for the Demographic and Socio-Economic Impact of AIDS. Durban, South Africa, 26–28 March 2003.

  • NAS. 1975. Underexploited Tropical Plants with Promising Economic Value. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 190 pp.

  • NAS. 1979. Tropical Legumes: Resources for the Future. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 332 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omamo S.W. and Lynam J.K. 2002. Agricultural science and technology policy in Africa. Discussion Paper 02–01. International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, The Netherlands. 49 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Place F. and Otsuka K. 2002. The role of tenure in the management of trees at the community level: Theoretical and empirical analyses from Uganda and Malawi. pp. 73–98. In: Meinzen-Dick, R., Knox, A., Place F. and Swallow B. (eds), Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Place F. and Swallow B. 2002. Assessing the relationships between property rights and technology adoption in smallholder agriculture: Issues and empirical methods. pp. 45–71. In: Meinzen-Dick R., Knox A., Place F. and Swallow B. (eds), Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Place F.S., Franzel S., De Wolf R., Rommelse R., Kwesiga F.R., Nianf A.I., and Jama, B.A. 2002. Agroforestry for soil fertility replenishment: Evidence on adoption processes in Kenya and Zambia. In: Barrett, C.B., Place F. and Aboud A.A. (eds), Natural Resource Management Practices in Sub-Saharan Africa. CABI Publishing and International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Wallingford, UK. 335 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puri S. and Nair P.K.R. 2004. Agroforestry research for development in India: 25 years of experiences of a national program. (This volume).

  • Rao M.R., Palada M.C. and Becker B.N. 2004. Medicinal and aromatic plants in agroforestry systems (This volume).

  • RUPES. 2003. Program for Rewarding Upland Poor in Asia for the Environmental Services They Provide. www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/Networks/RUPES/ Index.htm.

  • Russell D. and Franzel S. 2004. Trees of prosperity: Agroforestry, markets and the African smallholder (This volume).

  • Sanchez P.A. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295: 2019–2020.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr S.J. 2004. Building Opportunities for small-farm agroforestry to supply domestic wood markets in developing countries (This volume).

  • Schreckenberg K., Degrande A., Mbosso Z., Baboule B., Boyd C., Enyong L., Kanmegne J. and Ngong C. 2002. The social and economic importance of Dacroydes edulis in Southern Cameroon. Forests, Trees and People: 12: 15–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton S., Wynberg R., Sullivan C., Shackleton C., Leakey R., Mander M., McHardy T., den Adel S., Botelle A., du Plessis P., Lombard C., Combrinck A., Cunningham A., O'Regan D.and Laird S. 2003. Marula commercialisation for sustainable and equitable livelihoods: Synthesis of a southern African case study, Winners and Losers-Final Technical Report to DFID (FRP Project R7795), Volume 4, Appendix 3.5. 57 pp.

  • Shepherd K. and Walsh M. 2002. Development of reflectance spectral libraries for characterization of soil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66: 988–998.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simons A.J. 1996. ICRAF's strategy for domestication of non-wood tree products. pp. 8–22. In: Leakey R.R.B., Temu A.B., Melnyk M. and Vantomme P. (eds), Domestication and Commercialization of Non-Timber Forest Products in Agroforestry Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons A.J. and Leakey R.R.B. 2004. Tree domestication in tropical agroforestry (This volume).

  • Swallow B., Garrity D. and van Noordwijk M. 2001. The effects of scales, flows, and filters on property rights and collective action in watershed management. Water Policy 3: 457–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temu A., Mwanje I. and Mogotsi K. 2003. Improving Agriculture and Natural Resources Education in Africa. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. 36 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirtle C., Irz X., Lin L., McKenzie-Hill V. and Wiggins S. 2001. Relationship between changes in agricultural productivity and the incidence of poverty in developing countries. United Kingdom Department for International Development Report 7946. pp. 2.

  • Tomich T.P., Roemer M., and Vincent J. 1994. Development from a primary export base. pp. 151–194. In: Lindauer D. and Roemer M. (eds), Asia and Africa: Legacies and Opportunities in Development. Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomich T.P., van Noordwijk M., Vosti S. and Witcover J. 1998. Agricultural development with rainforest conservation: Methods for seeking best bet alternatives to slash-and-burn, with applications to Brazil and Indonesia. Agr Econ 19: 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torquebiau E.F. 1992. Are tropical agroforestry homegardens sustainable? Agr Ecosyst Environ 41: 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNDP. 2003. Human Development Report. United Nations Development Programme. New York. http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Noordwijk M., Tomich T.P., de Foresta H. and Michon G. 1997. To segregate - or to integrate? Agroforestry Today, Jan-March pp. 6–7.

  • van Noordwijk M., Tomich T.P. and Verbist B. 2003. Negotiation support models for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest margins. pp. 87–108. In: Campbell B.M. and Sayer J.A. (eds), Integrated Natural Resource Management: Linking Productivity, the Environment, and Development. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbosch T., Taylor P., Beniest J. and Bekele-Tesemma A. 2002. Farmers of the Future - a strategy for action. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. 72 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson R., Noble I., Bolin B., Ravindranath N., Verardo D. and Dokken D. 2000. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change & Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 377 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young A. 1997. Agroforestry for Soil Management. 2nd edition. CAB International & International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Wallingford/Nairobi. 288 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. World Agroforestry Centre, United Nations Avenue, P.O. Box 30677–00100, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail

    D.P. Garrity

Authors
  1. D.P. Garrity
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garrity, D. Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Agroforestry Systems 61, 5–17 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000028986.37502.7c

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000028986.37502.7c

Search

Navigation