!

1/
\ K
i I
CSC Jj.-

THE RESEARCH NEEDS OF AGROFORESTRY

WITHIN -AND WITHOUT THE CGIAR

by
H. A. Steppler

February 1987

First draft

.• • • •
> t >
• - -.•••! - - . . ........ .
The contents of this document are the ideas and opinions

of the author only. They do not reflect the ideas or

opinions of any other person or group of persons.

H- A. Steppler

X
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

The Research Needs of Agroforestry Within and Without the CGIAR . 1

Current status of research .................... • . 5

The researchable problems of agroforestry 7
Systems research ................................................ 7
Tree component . . ............................................ 8
Crop component ..................................................... 10
Animal component ................................................ 10
Other research issues ....................................... 11
Impact measurement . ......................................... 11
Breadth of research ............................................ 12
Research typology . • 13
Research institutions 15
Institutions and activities 16
Other issues 21
Training........................................ 21
* Information and coordination 22
The role of the donor . . . 23
Appendix A - ICRAF working paper 25
Appendix B - Multipurpose trees - collection and listing .... 26
Appendix C - MPT descriptions ...................... 27
Appendix D - Half life and sustainability 29
References .............................................................. 30

:., I-.. ................. .. : 111!

A
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

I. Analysis of articles in Volumes 1 to 4, Agroforestry System

Journal .................................................................................................. 6

2. A typology of research in agroforestry 14

3. An assignment of research types to research institutions . . 17

4. A matrix of research types and research needs with levels of

institutions ....................................................................................... 19

- ii

...... .... • •.‘•r ;

 THE RESEARCH NEEDS OF AGROFORESTRY
WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE CGIAR

The practice of mixing trees in the agricultural scene, whether

for crop production or animal production, is very old. Man has always
tended to retain trees in the landscape - his reasons varied and at
times seemed totally irrational in the eyes of an experimental
agriculturist. This is particularly evident in the tropics where
trees not only form an intimate part of the rural landscape, but more
importantly, where the tree cover is steadily, and at an accelerating
pace, being removed from the landscape, Among the consequences of
this loss are an increasing degradation of the land through soil
erosion and lowered water retention, lowered productivity and the
ineluctable shift away from a sustainable agriculture.

There have been several recent studies on the rate of

decline/loss of the tropical tree cover. Bene et al (1977) stated "it
has been predicted that within the next 25 to 30 years most of the
humid tropical forest as we know it will be transformed into
unproductive wasteland, and the deterioration of savanna into desert
will continue at ever increasing speed . . The "Global 2000"
report of the Carter administration of the U.S. predicted a loss of 40
per cent of the world's forest by the year 2000. A study by Sedjo and
Clausen (1983) and a U.N. study of the same period placed the figure
at a 14 per cent loss by the year 2000 - one-third that of Global
2000.

The F.A.0. study "Agriculture: Toward 2000" agrees with the

Sedjo/Clausen estimate that approximately 11 million hectares of
tropical forest are being cleared annually to provide land for
agriculture, i.e., 0.6 per cent loss per year, totalling about 12 per
cent by year 2000.

.. -.-x-x*x XX. X-.-X X : x .. .. X ..xxx- X ;X:X:X:X • ■.•xXx-xXx- X:X:x:X: : .*

 2 -

The forces operating to cause this loss of tree cover stem from
three main factors:
1. the use of natural forest cover to earn foreign exchange as
exported timber; there is also some local use;
2. the use of trees for fuelwood;
3. the demand for land for agriculture.
The latter two factors are functions of population growth and can be
intimately related. The clearing of forested land is not necessarily
motivated by the desire to cut trees but, rather, by the need for land
on which to grow food, Further, the factors 2 and 3 are of direct
concern to all the population, particularly the rural; while factor 1
is of more direct concern to the government and tends to be the
feature which dominates forestry policy in most countries.

It is not the intention of this paper to address the question of

the rate of loss of the forest/tree cover or of the degree of land
degradation, That is taken as of sufficient severity to warrant our
attention. Rather, the intention is to address the problem of factors
2 and 3 and the concomitant problem of gradual decline in agricultural
production, either from animals or crops. I shall consider not only
the 'potential of trees solely to produce fuelwood, but also the many
other uses to which trees can be put in meeting the needs of the
farmer - whether it be as a food for man or animals or as a soil
modifier or an environmental stabilizer. Further, that consideration
shall be with regard to the research requirements and how this might
be apportioned among various agricultural research institutions.

Agroforestry is the term used to identify those land use cum

production systems which combine trees in the landscape with crops
and/or livestock. The practice is old, but the term is relatively
new. G. Lessard, the one-time Associate Director of Forestry for the
International Development Research Centre (IDRC) convened the first
ever regional meetings to discuss forestry research in Africa - West
Africa in 1974 in Dakar. The meeting identified among other problems,

•.. :
 3

the need for research in shelterbelts and soil restoration. In 1975

the President of IDRC convened a team under John Bene for Identifica­
tion of Tropical Forestry Research Priorities. The team, with its
advisory committee, quickly recognized the intimate relationship that
existed between forestry and agriculture. The report of the team,
"Trees, Food and People, Land Management in the Tropics" (Bene et al,
1977), identified 23 tropical forestry problems, Of these, nine could
be considered as dealing with agroforestry, while another seven
contribute both to forestry and agroforestry. The Bene report was
indeed a landmark study. The report recommended the establishment of
an international council to "encourage and support research; to
acquire and disseminate information concerning agroforestry systems
..." The International Council for Research in Agroforestry - ICRAF -
was established in the fall of 1977, with IDRC as the executive agency
and with an elected Board of Trustees with its headquarters in
Nairobi.

The term agroforestry means different things to different people.

The editorial in volume 1, number 1, of the new journal, Agroforestry
Systerns, gives twelve definitions by twelve world experts in the
field. The common thread identifies agroforestry as
;
a land use system in which woody perennials are deliberately grown
on the same piece of land as agricultural crops and/or animals;
the "tree" component may contribute ecological benefit, fuelwood,
building materials, food, browze, soil amendments, i.e., mulch, N-
fixation, nutrient recycling;
all outputs, whether from the tree or the agricultural component
meet the needs of the user.

Agroforestry is a land use system which is neither designed

ultimately to establish forest (thus, taungya is not properly an
agroforestry system) nor is it designed to establish agriculture per
se. Further, agroforestry should not be confused with social/community
forestry.
 4

Suffice to say that agroforestry engenders as many definitions as

there are discussants and is as difficult to define with precision as
agriculture.

Agroforestry has had a very different evolution in the eyes of

the forester in contrast to the agriculturist, The former has seen it
as a means of dealing with the invasion of agriculture into the forest
domain. He has probably viewed it as a means of relieving the
pressure on forest for such products as fuelwood and fencing/home
building poles. Thus, the problem of the land-hungry, food-deficient
peasant has not been the central consideration, nor was the
sustainability of the food production system a major concern, To the
credit of the forester, he did, however, take the initiative, The
agriculturist-has been largely passive in the early development of
agroforestry, His domain was not being threatened by trees, so why be
concerned. Those in agriculture who had had experience in the tropics
and had witnessed the destruction of the forest by the rural
population seeking fuel and land on which to grow food realized the
need for action and applauded the initiative of the forester. There
is a growing, but small, cadre of agriculturists who see the role that
agr<jforestry can play and who espouse it.

Unlike agriculture and forestry, agroforestry is not

institutionalized. There are no national agroforestry research
institutes. The limited work that is under way is generally under
direction of forestry or agriculture or a joint committee; hence
agroforestry does, to some extent, suffer from an identity problem.
ICRAF is the only international institution dedicated to agroforestry.
There are, however, an increasing number of agroforestry programs now
appearing in the universities of the developing world; again, the
majority of these are associated with forestry. There are also some
programs appearing in the developed world but, again, associated with
forestry, e.g., University of Bangor, Wales, and Oxford Forestry
Institute, Oxford University, England. The greater potential of
 5

agroforestry will not begin to be realized until the appropriate

agricultural disciplines join with those in forestry to develop
agroforestry in its own right. In the interim, training and exposure
to integrated, multidisciplinary research will be essential to meet
the rapidly expanding demands for agroforestry technology/solutions.

Current status of research

Before discussing the problem of research requirements in

agroforestry, it would be instructive to consider the status of
research in agroforestry. To the best of the author's knowledge,
there is only one journal dedicated to agroforestry; that is
Agroforestry Systems published by Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk; Volume
I was published in September 1982. A brief analysis of the articles
published to date is given in Table 1. Three observations can be made
- even on this limited data:
1. the largest percentage of papers to date have been descriptive of
agroforestry systems found in many parts of the world - many a
consequence of an ICRAF Agroforestry Systems Inventory Project;
2. within the descriptive papers there are relatively few that
present data - particularly quantified output information;
3. there are very few papers reporting results of carefully designed
experiments.

This evidence strongly supports the impression of this writer

that until very recently the majority of "papers" on agroforestry were
descriptive, almost to the point of being anecdotal. The Bene report
(1977) cited as an important task for the recommended council "to
assemble and assess existing information concerning agroforestry
systems . . ." and "to encourage, support, coordinate, research and
extension projects in agroforestry. . A critical search of earlier
literature reveals that many papers purporting to report research
results were, in fact, empirical and non-replicated measurements from
existing situations. There was no evidence of either inductive or
 6

TABLE 1. Analysis of articles in Volumes 1 to 4, Agroforestry Systems

Journal

Descriptive Presents
without with experimental Other Total
data data techniques topics

No. of
articles 34 17 10 27 88

Per cent
of total 39 19 11 31

;
 7

deductive hypothesis formulation and testing, Most of the information

presented pertained to the tree component, little to the agricultural
and virtually none to the system. Agroforestry research is at an
early developmental stage, although, as will be pointed out later,
some aspects of component research have an extensive body of
knowledge.

The examination of the research needs in agroforestry and how

these might best be met over, say, the next decade, suggest the
consideration of two broad questions, namely,
1. What are the problems which require investigation, can they be
placed into a meaningful typology?
2. What institutions are currently on the scene and most appropriate
to engage in the various research activities identified? Do we
need new institutions?

The researchable problems of agroforestry

From the standpoint of research, the aggregate problem is to deal

with a complex land use system with multiple output, The system,
howeyer, can be disaggregated into its component parts and each dealt
with ^independently; both approaches are valid but not mutually
exclusive. Further, the measurement of output will depend in part on
the "component etc." being studied, as well as the anticipated impact.
I shall look first at the aggregate problem and then the major
components. This examination of the researchable problems will not
attempt to present a definitive list but, rather, suggest the kinds of
problems likely to be encountered (see Appendix A).

Systems research

The major requirement is to be able to identify the situations in

which an 'agroforestry solution is most appropriate - as opposed to
agriculture or forestry - and to determine the optimum system to be
used. Parallel with that is the diagnosis of existing systems to

/ £•
*

- ,■ • • •• ........................................... ..... . ' ....... . ,_.S. ■ ..................... " . ... . .. :

 8

identify the constraining or limiting factor or factors and the point

of entry into the systems for new technology. Methodology to test
.efficiency of new systems must be developed; there has been a
considerable body of knowledge and experimentation on mixtures in
cereals and in forage crops but virtually none on complex mixtures of
woody perennials with herbaceous annuals - the basis of many
agroforestry cropping systems, The rationale for the use of an
agroforestry solution will, in probably the majority of cases, lie in
the expected impact of the system ecologically and environmentally.
These outputs/impacts could be benefits such as erosion control, water
retention, sustainability and products such as fuelwood, building
poles, mulch and various food products from the different components.
There is an urgent need to identify the criteria to be used for
measurement and to develop a common basis for analysis and
comparison.

Tree component

The distinguishing feature of all agroforestry systems is the

presence of trees, These are not likely to be the trees of
conventional forestry; they are what are being popularly called
"multipurpose trees." They meet the needs of the user with respect to
the output, which may be mulch plus animal feed or a human food
product or fuelwood, fencing materials or building materials, At the
same time, they may meet more subtle requirements - at least as far as
the user is concerned - by providing erosion control, facilitating
water management, nutrient recycling and/or conferring sustainability
on the system. They are the centrepiece of the agroforestry system.

Two irrefutable statements can be made with respect to

multipurpose trees:
1. A very large number of them have been identified as used by farmers
in various parts of the world.
2. Very little beyond anecdotal information is available for the large

■. r ■ X . ■■ ■ • ! .... ............................ . . .’ .- .......................................... ' .■.• "

. •• '• . . . . .•••. ............................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................•. . . . .... . . . . . . ■
 9

majority of prescribed multipurpose trees. The word "prescribed"

overstates the case since, in many instances, we are presented with
a species which has been observed in some indigenous system.

ICRAF has had an ongoing program attempting to establish a list

of multipurpose trees (see Appendix B). The preliminary estimate
suggests that there are upwards of 650 species for which seed is
available. Here the key word is species. We are dealing with
botanical species and in some cases only genera, not specific
genotypes or even provenances within a species. Thus, not only is
there little information on the various species, but in addition we
are dealing almost exclusively with unselected wild populations. A
cursory examination of a small population of a species - established
from true seed - will quickly confirm the degree of genetic
variability which exists within that species and, hence, indicates the
scope for selection of preferred genotypes.

The research task with multipurpose trees potentially includes

all of the activities found in an agricultural crop, from plant
exploration and collection through to breeding of genotypes to fit
particular "niches" in systems and environments, Among the research
topics and activities would be:
- description of characteristics of species - taxonomic and economic
botany;
- range of genetic diversity, ecological adaptability, product
variation, etc.;
- phenology and response to management;
- productive capacity;
- nutrient recycling capacity and impact on site characteristics;
- propagation technique;
- nutritive value as a food - human or animal.
Not all potential multipurpose tree species would be subject to the
same intensity of study, However, given the number of species, the
task is indeed challenging (see Appendix C for treatment of two
candidate species).

k
in'
 10

Crop component

The crop component is the most researched component of the

agroforestry system, but not in the context of the system. Virtually
all of the research has been conducted with the crop as a monoculture
- a small portion may have been done in mixed culture in association
with other herbaceous annuals in the case of cereals or perennials in
the case of forage crops.

The environment for an annual crop grown in association with a

woody perennial will be much different from that when grown in
monoculture. Thus, one would anticipate that at some stage in the
development of a new system there would be the need to determine the
best adapted genotype for a given situation with a particular
management system, It is also obvious that the number of variations
that could exist between a woody and an herbaceous component is almost
infinite. Characteristics which would be investigated to obtain the
optimum performance would be tolerance to competition for nutrients
and water, tolerance to shade, nature of root distribution, etc., with
variation introduced both in the crop component and the tree
component.
?

Animal component

The situation with the animal component is somewhat similar to

that of the crop component; there is an extensive body of knowledge on
the animals per se but little which relates the animal to an
agroforestry system. We have a considerable body of knowledge on
range management with many browse species involved, We do not have
detailed information on the management of multipurpose trees as a
source of fodder, their nutritional value and presence of
antimetabolites. Further, the information is mainly for the large
ruminants with much less for the small ruminant.

The kinds of information and, hence, research, needed in this

sector would include the following: nutritional value of the fodder

. . ; . . • . . . ; ; ■■ ■
 11

produced, portion of total production which is consumed, presence of

antimetabolites and strategies to overcome, response of trees/system
to browsing, conservation techniques, comparative advantage of
different animal types, animals in recycling nutrients. There may be,
in addition, the need to study supplementation in feeding systems such
as mineral minor element and/or protein using local indigenous
materials or specially grown materials.

Other research issues

There are many other problems/factors which have an impact on

agroforestry, its use, -efficacy, social acceptability, etc., which are
exogenous to the system and its components, These are factors such as
land tenure systems, owner-tenant relationships, forest policy,
particularly as it affects the use of trees, traditional views of
trees in the landscape, not only trees per se but specific species of
trees. In addition, the market opportunities for products in excess
of household use could well influence willingness to embrace an
improved or altered technology.

"It is obvious that the impact of some of these factors might be

modified by a change in the technology itself, However, virtually all
will require interventions at the government level to alter policy,
market opportunities, etc.

Impact measurement

The determination of the impact of agroforestry will be made at

at least two levels, that of the system as a whole and of the
individual component.

The impact of the system as a whole will most likely be measured

in ecological terms; for example, the control of erosion, the
stabilization of water supply, the sustainability of the system/output
as well as the environment. The matter of sustainability will require
careful study, since our goal is sustainability but at the highest

■ ............................................................................- ■ :■ .■ ■ ;................................................................................................. ....

 12

possible economically viable level of output, We are not seeking to

stabilize the status quo. The need for new innovative approaches to
measurement should be obvious. Economic measures are the most
apparent, but I would caution against their exclusive use; they tend
to imply that every resource has a price and if you can meet that
price, then virtually unlimited use of that resource is justified.
Other measures, such as return from the most limiting resource or the
output system which minimizes degradation or lengthens the production
period of the system (see Appendix D) should also be developed.

The measurement of the output/production of the individual

components will require the same kind of innovativeness as that
suggested for the system as a whole, There will need to be some
common denominator identified, since we may have fuelwood, browse,
cereals, and crop residue for animals, all as measurable outputs from
the same system and different combinations from different systems.

Breadth of research

As one reads the descriptions of the agroforestry systems being

published in Agroforestry Systems Journal, one is struck by the
diversity of systems, Some are relatively simple, with a small number
of components, say four to six. Others are very complex, such as the
village-agroforests of West Java, with upwards of 20 tree species plus
herbs for as many as 250 "crop" species growing in one village. The
task of research into the components and variants of such a system is
almost beyond comprehension, In my judgement, it would be a waste of
resources to extend to situations such as these the detailed analysis
which has been proposed, However, it is important that the
descriptive/anthropological information be obtained against possible
interventions in the future. There Is the need to determine, and as
much as possible abide by, priorities in research into agroforestry
problems.
 13

Research typology

The second review of the CG system suggested a classification of

research into four categories. This has been adopted by the centres
and TAC. The classes are
(1) Basic research - designed to generate new understanding;
(2) Strategic research - designed for the solution of specific
research problems;
(3) Applied research - designed to create new technology;
(4) Adaptive research - designed to adjust technology to the specific
needs of a particular set of environmental conditions.

Agricultural - and I would submit agroforestry - research can

also be classified according to the transferability of the output of
that research. Thus, we can speak of location specific research which
implies "tailored" for a particular site/ecological/need specification
and, hence, unlikely to be transferabaie to other sites unless an
exact match can be found. This is most likely to be an output which
is characterized by tangible features, e.g. , soil management,
fertilizer practice, animal or feeding system using locally available
feeds. There would also be research which leads to new knowledge,
which would be essentially site neutral and hence highly transferable.
An examination of the four categories of research will clearly
indicate that as research moves "upstream" the output becomes more
transferable, while movement downstream leads to less transferability
and a higher degree of location specificity.

Table 2 combines the four categories of research with the

transferability characteristics and then presents these in a matrix
against the research components. Within each cell of this matrix I
have identified an example of the type of research that might be
appropriately executed. The typology and its examples are not meant
to be exhaustive but, rather, indicative.
 I

«1 .
I

Table 2. A typology of research in agroforestry

Research Non-location specific, transferable Location specific

subject Basic and strategic Applied research non-transferable
area research problem solving adaptive research

Systems develop systems models develop experimental synthesize system and test
per se and concepts of designs and analytical in situ ; modify introduced
evaluation techniques systems

Tree collection and develop propagation determine adapted ecotype,

component description of MPTs, techniques, experimental management spacing, etc. ,
phenology designs for testing, in system
i
identify various ecotypes
-o
Crop determine physiological develop selection determine management i
component basis for species techniques to identify technique in association
interaction superior types - with MPT; identify adapted
experimental designs for ecotype
testing

Animal establish nutritional develop systems to meet animal husbandry in the

component value of MPT; examine aseasonal feed require­ system, local feed
antimetabolites ments, animal/calf supplies, carrying
management, health capacity
measures

Output identify criteria to develop methodology for measure output in

measurement measure output; criteria, test on selected operational situation;
quantify; establish systems compare systems
some standards
 15

It should be patently obvious that we are not dealing with neatly

compartmented subjects as the typology implies, but rather with a
continuum. There will be many grey and overlapping areas; this does
not create problems, only the need for rational decisions, Further,
the typology would strongly suggest that
(1) Each "1-ocation/site" should have its own location specific
research activity. The number of sites depends on the size of the
recommendation domain to which the output would be applied, Hence,
the problem of identifying those minimum characteristics which will
define a homogeneous domain of sufficient size to justify the
dedication of research resources.
(2) Each location/site need not have associated with it the resources
to undertake the non-site-specific research. The further upstream one
moves the more cogent the rationale to centralize such research.

In preparing this typology 1 have not included the "other

research issues." The majority of these issues could present some
difficulty for objective research at the national level by a national
institution. On the other hand, any legislative action will be taken
at the local or national level and, in most cases, an individual
farmer could not act independently. Thus, it would seem that research
into the understanding of these issues should be treated as non­
location-specific if at all possible, with objective interpretation
the goal. The results of such studies would then be made available
for "local" application in policy modification, etc.

Research institutions

Having briefly examined the research needs in agroforestry, I now

turn to examine the institutions that are most likely to be active in
the field of agroforestry.

A classification of research institutions can be developed, based

on the area - both geographical and political — of responsibility.
Thus we can have

•y. • ••• • • •••’ • • • • • .;.: v‘v.v.

 16

National institutions.—Those which are dedicated to the problems

of a country. These could be direct government institutions such as a
Ministry of Agriculture or of Forestry Research Institute; a semi-
autonoraous research institute, i.e., not reporting to a Ministry but
funded from public treasury; a university research activity or an
industrial research activity.

Regional institutions.—Institutions which have a mandate which

goes beyond a national boundary and which encompasses two or more
countries. They normally have a reasonably well defined mandate which
establishes the boundaries for activity. Examples would be
Institut de Recherche Agronomique et Zootechnique - IRAZ. This
works in Rwanda, Burundi and Kivu province of Zaire, Plans to
conduct research.
Southern African Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research -
SACCAR. This coordinates research, training and information for
the nine countries of SADCC. SACCAR does not conduct research.
West African Rice Development Association - WARDA. An association
of 15 West African countries dedicated to improve rice production
in the region. WARDA does conduct research at its own stations.

'International institutions.—These are the institutions which

have at least a continent-wide or global mandate, generally for a
commodity, but sometimes for an ecological zone and through that, one
or more commodities.

Institutions and activities

Table 3 matches the type of research to the level of

responsibility and/or appropriateness of the research institution.
The location-specific research must be done in the area in question.
Since these sites are most likely to be found within national
boundaries, it follows that the NARs are the most appropriate agencies
to undertake this work and IARCs the least appropriate.

• . •*.*.*•* *1^
 TABLE 3. An assignment of research types to research institutions

Level Non-location-specific Location-specific

of
institution Basic and strategic Applied Adaptive

Can be done at this Can be done at this level Must be done at this
National level but not essential but not essential level; critical national
sys terns
i
Could be done at this Appropriate at this level Inappropriate at this
Regional level if no other if no international level; could only apply to
i
institute institute available host country

Inter­ Could be done at this Highly appropriate at Inappropriate at this

national level - by any equipped this level for IARCs level; could only apply to
institution host country

I
 18

The only factors which preclude a NARs from engaging in research

at all levels are the resources - human and financial - which can be
dedicated to it. The inappropriateness of the IARCs to undertake the
location-specific research results not from their inability to do such
research but, rather, from the fact that they could not respond to the
needs of all location-specific sites within their zone of responsi-
bility. Thus, it is obvious that their comparative advantage lies in
engaging in research which has an output that can feed into several
location-specific/NARs requirements.

The next stage is to identify the research institutions of Table

3r with the research subject areas of Table 2 to begin to specify the
institutions and activities. Table 4 presents such a matrix, The
objective has been to capitalize on the comparative advantage of each
institution.

Thus, those IARCs dealing with crops associated with agroforestry

systems would hold lead positions for that component research
appropriate to the system and would cooperate with ICRAF in applied
research on the system. It is obvious that the same would apply to
the animal component, with ILCA and ICARDA being lead institutions for
this, at least in Africa. Again with ICRAF as the only designated
agroforestry organization, it seems appropriate that the tree
component work should be its responsibility - at least in terms of
coordination and identification of priority areas and species for
research; while IBPGR should become involved and fully conversant with
the development of the relevant species information.

ICRAF has assumed the lead position in the development and use of
the systems approach in a diagnostic technique. It should continue to
play that role. ICRAJ’ should cooperate closely with the relevant IARC
in the synthesis and testing of systems which include the components
of the specific IARCs, or which are at the applied level of research
for their ecological zone.

*
.. ; : ■ .... ..

:V. : • ••• .. . . -'<il ... , - •••:• . ... ...

 19

TABLE 4. A matrix of research types and research needs with levels of

institutions

Non-location-specific Lo cation-specific
Basic & strategic Applied Adaptive

Sys tem ICRAF (L) IARC & ICRAF (L) National (L)

Tree ICRAF (L) ICRAF (L) National (L)

IBPGR and National and ICRAF

Crop IARCs (L) IARCs (L) National (L)

and other and National
international
institutions

Animal IARCs (L) IARCs (L) National (L)

and other and ICRAF
specialized and National
institutions

Output IARCs, ICRAF (L) IARCs National (L)

IBSRAM, IIMI CG & non CG

OtheV ICRAF (L) IFPRI National to

issues ? IFPRI ? ICRAF legislate
specialized IUFRO ?
institutions

(L) = lead institution

 20

The problem of responsibility for generation of output

measurement creates some concern. Each institution with a lead
responsibility for a component should have as one facet of that
research the development of the criteria for evaluation, However,
this could result in a series of discrete measures without a concept
of measurement of the whole systems impact. Thus, in the first
instance and at least for the next quinquennium, ICRAF should take the
lead role to ensure that those needed system-wide criteria are
developed. The same kind of problem exists with respect to most of
the "other research issues." Here, ICRAF's role would be to seek out
specialized institutions that can address some of the specific
problems and to coordinate and disseminate the acquired information.
IUFR0 and IFPRI might play important roles in this particular
instance.

It is clear that the national institutions have the lead role in

location-specific research, It should also be obvious that the
research actor at the applied research level should cooperate with and
respond to the needs expressed by the various NARs.

.There is a dearth of regional institutions. SACCAR (the Southern

African Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research) has a clear
role and is active with some regional programs at present -
particularly sorghum and millet (ICRISAT) and beans (CIAT). It has
been given the responsibility to coordinate agroforestry research for
its SADCC area and, as such, has a key role to play in the AFRENA
(Agroforestry Research Network for Africa) program presently being
developed in the SADCC by ICRAF. SACCAR does not carry research
itself and has no research station. There are no other similar
regional organizations as far as agroforestry is concerned.

A valid question to be asked: "Do we need additional such

regional organizations at this point in the development of
agroforestry research?" There would seem to be no justification to
propose regional institutes to deal with the crop and animal

• ■. ■ ; ■ •• ... ...... . - ..... . . . - • ; • ; •••- . . ... • *.. . !•

 21

components• There is a reasonably well planned group of such

institutes now operational and some of these have regional sub-
programs. There is not, in my judgement, at present a lacuna in the
coverage of research activities except, possibly, for the tree
component and some aspects of the systems studies. However, these are
being addressed and, hence, I would believe it prudent to allow the
current iniatives to be evaluated before embarking on a new series of
ventures.

Nevertheless, there is one activity which should be encouraged,

namely, to develop research networks linking NARs and international
institutes in purposeful research activity where the NARs will both
benefit and contribute. The model being used by ICRAF in AFRENA
should be monitored for possible application to other situations,
particularly research problems, I would strongly caution against
establishing such networks unless there is research activity at both
levels to be coordinated. I would further urge that the NARs be given
a high profile in any network activity which is undertaken; the
international institute should play the role of catalyst, Finally,
networks are very powerful tools when properly used. They should not
be established with reckless abandon and in the enthusiasm of their
current popularity, particularly among donors; otherwise those whom we
wish to assist will become discouraged and disenchanted.

Other issues

Training

A brief reference has been made to training, As stated, there is

a small number of universities with fledgling programs in
agroforestry; the great need in the next decade will be for trained
researchers in agroforestry and of equal importance for extension
personnel trained in agroforestry.

The IARC's can assist by initiating where appropriate training

courses in agroforestry research methodology as applied to their
\

•
..
■ •
.....
............................................................................................................................ . . .
.. .
... . . . ...
...
 22

commodities and/or systems, It is not anticipated that this would

result in intensive courses for all trainees; rather, a brief exposure
for all and intensive specialized courses for a smaller number of
people. ICRAF should continue to assume this responsibility for the
holistic approach of systems, particularly the diagnostic methodology.
It should probably assume this role for synthesizing and presenting an
overall systems evaluation methodology.'

The problem of training of extension cadres in agroforestry

techniques is much more troublesome since extension is not the mandate
of the research centres. The one international organization whose
mandate includes extension is the FAO. It should be encouraged to
address this issue with the full cooperation of the relevant inter­
national institutes within and without the CG. The ultimate
effectiveness of the agroforestry initiative will depend on the
adoption of any generated technology by the users and, as we well
know, that is the domain of the extension agent. Feedback to the
research scientist must likewise come from that same person - he is
vital to our success.

Information and coordination

The lack of a single international institute which has a mandate

to conduct research into all of the areas identified in Table 2 urges
upon us the need for coordination of research efforts between the
various actors and the sharing of information.

Coordination means ensuring that there is a minimum of

duplication and that there are no gaps in our activities, It means
collegial effort by all of the organizations, at least at the
international level, to assure that optimum use is made of the
resources at hand with integrated programs where deemed feasible.

Only one international organization - ICRAF - has a mandate

exclusively in agroforestry and, further, as previously stated, one of
its functions is information gathering and dispersal, with respect to
 23

research. Thus, it appears only rational and ineluctable that the

task of information gathering and of. coordination should be lodged
with ICRAF.

In the matter of information and coordination, it seems a

self-evident proposition that there be developed regular forums for
exchange of information for coordination and for forward planning.
These forums might function at two levels:
a. The level of the senior administrative directors-general of the
institutes to plan strategy, commit resources, settle
administrative matters, etc. This level should probably meet on
an annual basis.
b. The level of the researchers or research team leaders, to discuss
research tactics, exchange data,“plan forward experiments, etc.
This level should meet at least annually and probably more
frequently whenever a new activity is being initiated.

At level "a" one organization should assume responsibility to

ensure continuity. As the IARCs of the CG have major mandates in
addition to agroforestry, it would seem that ICRAF, with its sole
responsibility for agroforestry, should assume responsibility to
convene the level 'a' meetings, A mechanism should also be devised to
facilitate consultation with the relevant NARs; this is of particular
importance when discussing strategy and forward planning.

The role of the donor

The role of the donor is unequivocal: to support the programs.

However, we do have a responsibility to inform the donors re the
prospects of change from agroforestry initiatives.

Thus, while there may be some new technology available In a

relatively short time, say about three years, affecting a component or
possibly promoting a new multipurpose tree species, it will take much
longer to design and test new or improved agroforestry systems.
Further, the impacts may be much more elusive and not as obvious as

. *J .
 - 24 -

strong-strawed cereal, The donors should be prepared to support

research without the immediate prospect of payoff. The institutes, on
the other hand, should seek greater rigour in defining objectives of
research and with reasonable time frames for achieving quantified
outputs.

The donors can play an important role in their bilateral

activities. The newness of agroforestry would suggest that donors be
encouraged to make use of the latest information when approached by a
recipient country for support of an agroforestry program, or when they
(the donors) are considering support or encouragement for one. The
identification of the lead institution in Table 4 would indicate the
most appropriate institution to approach for such information.
Further, mention was made of the critical role of extension training.
Donors would truly enhance the probability of success if they were to
include provision for training of extension personnel in agroforestry
techniques, and also if they were to support institutions which were
engaged in such training programs.

Agroforestry has many positive attributes and much to offer in

the struggle to sustain and to increase the output from the land
resource. It is not a panacea, a cure for all problems; there is an
equally strong urge to restrain the enthusiast and to ensure its
proper use; we all need to be honest brokers.

. . ■. .

• ••••• • ■ • • •• : .................................. • . • : . : ' ?•* ■: .• ‘ .• .

 APPENDIX A
ICRAF WORKING PAPER

An important activity of ICRAF in response to its mandate to

provide information on and to provide leadership in agroforestry
research development has been its "Working Paper" series. These are
papers prepared by a staff member on a subject in research, training,
information gathering, evaluation, etc., and based on literature
survey with forward projections. They are made available in limited
numbers for comment and discussion.

The first paper was released in 1983. To date, i.e., November

1986, 42 papers have been produced. Several deal with the Diagnosis
and Design Methodology developed by ICRAF, both its use in the field,
resources required and site reports where it has been used. Several
deal with experimental designs which might be helpful in field
research, while others treat impact measurement. The most recent
paper, No.42 by Anthony Young, is entitled "The potential of agro­
forestry for soil conservation. Part I. Erosion control." This is an
excellent review of the subject, with first a treatment of the general
problems of erosion control and then a more specific treatment of
agroforestry and erosion control. The paper ends with a section
suggesting research objectives and possible designs.

The complete list of working papers is attached.

25

; •• '; ••••.. ;. • ; • ..
, •.•. • . . • .'• • ■ ■ • • • • ■ • • • ’■ ! ’•!•!•!•• • ••••• ... :. ..... .................
!;‘v. i • ■. • *. v •
... ‘
... . . •........... ‘ x . . ;
 APPENDIX B
MULTIPURPOSE TREES - COLLECTION AND LISTING

Many "lists" of multipurpose trees have been published in the

course of studies of subsistence farming, multiple cropping, forest
gardens, etc. ICRAF, through its project Agroforestry Systems
Inventory, has further attempted to assemble more informative lists of
multipurpose trees.

The following two publications are of major importance to those

wishing to gather more information on known or relatively new species.

Burley, J. and P. von Carlowitz- 1984. Multipurpose Tree Germplasm.

Published by ICRAF, Nairobi.
This is the proceedings of a workshop sponsored by ICRAF, GTZ and
IBPGR. Matters discussed include definitions of multipurpose
trees (MPTs), problems in exploration, conservation and
evaluation of MPTs, data retrieval, germplasm resources, rapid
appraisal methods, The workshop was hosted by National Academy
of Sciences, Washington.

von Garlowitz, P. G. 1986. Multipurpose Tree and Shrub Seed

Directory. Published by ICRAF, Nairobi.
This valuable directory results from a study sponsored by GTZ.
It lists upwards of 650 species of MPTs for which seed is
available. Source and price of seed is also given. Information
is also provided on the known methods of seed treatment
prescribed for each species. The author has also provided
"reported uses" for each species listed; these can range from bee
forage to human medicine to household utensils. A cursory look
at these reported uses emphasizes the need for a clear and
objective system of output measurement.

26
 APPENDIX C
MPT DESCRIPTIONS

There is virtually no information on the many multipurpose trees

which have been identified as possible components in an agroforestry
sys tem. The following are examples of two publications on two such
species•

Leucana

Probably the most widely used - at least experimentally - multi-

purpose tree species, There is a considerable body of literature now
available. The following article reports on one workshop and does
contain suggestions for further research.

Leucana Research in the Asian-Pacific Region. 1983. IDRC -

211e. Proceedings of a workshop held in Singapore in November 1982.
Organized by the Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association and the
International Development Research Centre. Articles cover topics on
biology and improvement, forage production and nutritional problems,
wood*production and soil restoration characteristics.
>
There are an increasing number of research programs concerned
with Leucana and, hence, more publications appearing on such topics as
alley farming, soil benefits, minosine/nutritional factors, etc.

Eucalyptus

This is one of the most widely grown introduced tree species in

the tropics, A native of Australia, it can be found in virtually
every tropical country of the world. Its very success has engendered
much criticism, some, no doubt, from unfulfilled expectations and some
probably justified on sound objective grounds, The following
publication illustrates two theories:
Si • the difficulties in obtaining unequivocal answers to questions
regarding ecological effects;

27

;■

!.. • ^ .... , ’ ... ■ ........................................................................................................................................

 28

b. the types of questions and, hence, of research that is required,

if questions re environmental impact, sustainability and social
acceptability are to be answered.

Poore, M. E. D. and C. Fries. 1985. The Ecological Effects of

Eucalyptus. FAO Forestry Paper No.59.
A literature review'which considers eucalyptus in relation to the
water cycle, soil erosions, nutrient usage and recycling,
competition and management, and some social considerations. A
well-balanced treatment of the subject which in many respects
raises more questions than supplies answers.

>
 APPENDIX D
HALF LIFE AND SUSTAINABILITY

A problem in measurement of sustainability is to define the term

in such a way that it can be quantified and measured, Ideally, it
should be a definition which is independent of the level of production
but which can be applied to any quantified situation.

One suggestion would be to use the "half-life" concept from

atomic physics. In our case "half life" would be defined as the
length of time for production to decline to 50 per cent of the current
level• A half life of 25 years is obviously more stable than one of
10 years. Objectives in research on a system could then be:
a. to lengthen the half life;
b. to raise level of production without changing half life;
c. a combination of a and b.

We would need to define an acceptable "half-life" for

sustainability - possibly with different values for different
ecological situations.

^t is also patently obvious that a level other than half life -

50 per cent - could be used, e.g., one-third life - 33 per cent loss
of production, etc.

29

Ìli.• ... .•
 REFERENCES

Bene, J. G., H. W. Beall and A. Coté. 1977. Trees, Food and People -
Land Management in the Tropics. IDRC, Ottawa. IDRC - 084e.

Agroforestry Systems. 1982. What is Agroforestry? Editorial.

Agroforestry Systems 1(1): 7-12.

FAO. 1981. Agriculture: Toward 2000. FAO, Rome. Economic and

Social Development Series //23.

Sedjo, R. A. and M. Clauson. 1983. Global Forest. Mimeograph.

Resources for Future,■ Washington.

Government USA. 1979. Global 2000. Report to Carter Administration,

U.S. (quoted by Sedjo and Clauson).

SELECTED ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Buck, Louise (ed.). 1981. Proceedings of the Kenya National Seminar

on Agroforestry. ICRAF, Nairobi.

Chandler, T. and D. Spurgen (ed.). 1980. International Cooperation

in Agroforestry. Proceedings of Conference. ICRAF, Nairobi.

Huxley, P. A. (ed.). 1983. Plant Research and Agroforestry.

Proceedings of Consultative Meeting. ICRAF, Nairobi.

MacDonald, L. H. (ed). 1982. Agro-forestry in the African Humid

Tropics. Proceedings of a workshop. United Nations University.
NRTS-17/UNUP-364.

Mongi, H. 0. and P. A. Huxley (ed.). 1979. Soils Research in

Agroforestry. Proceedings of an Expert Consultation. ICRAF,
Nairobi.

- 30 -

.■.