Fulltext - World Agroforestry Centre

24 Pages·2009·3.72 MB·English

Content Presentation Letter
Agroforestry systems and the environment............3 Last June we released the first edition of Amazon Agroforestry.
Now in December, at the end of a year full of relevant Agroforestry
ICRAF Amazon presents its growing role in two
events, it is our pleasure to present the second edition of the
major Agroforestry events.....................................5
newsletter. Published in three languages, in 2009 Amazon
Agroforestry reached audiences at the 2nd World Agroforestry
Ecuador's National Forestry Program.....................7
Congress in Nairobi (August), 13th World Forestry Congress in
Bringing Wild Fruit Trees into Cultivation in Buenos Aires (October), and 7th Brazilian Agroforestry Congress
Southern Africa.....................................................8 in Brasilia (June), among other venues. The feed-back provided by readers of the
printed or electronic versions of the newsletter has been quite supportive, and based
Multistrata Agroforestry Technology in Peru.........10
on these comments we have adjusted the structure of the newsletter. This issue
therefore features Marc Dourojeanni as the first to express his Agroforestry Opinion,
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in
specifically addressing the challenges presented in the interface between
the Peruvian Amazon ..........................................11
agroforestry and the environment. Each issue of our newsletter will thus include a
ICRAF in Peru - putting down roots in short essay (not expressing ICRAF's position) dealing with relevant perspectives and
Amazonia...........................................................12 points of view on contemporary agroforestry.
Establishment of Silvopastoral Systems in the This issue also presents an update on Amazon Agroforestry's Network in Caquetá,
Colombian Amazon ............................................14 Colombia. The Agroforestry Network sub-section will be a permanent space within
the Agroforestry in the Amazon component of the newsletter (along with the sub-
Agroforestry in Mato Grosso: Promoting
sections on AF Contexts, AF Projects, and AF Species). The space is intended to
Conservation through Support to State Policies....15
present recent developments and exchange information about groups that are
mobilizing themselves around Agroforestry practice in the region. Still another sub-
Camu camu, a socio-economically important native
section presented here is Global Agroforestry, which in each edition will provide an
species in the Peruvian Amazon...........................16
overview of ICRAF activities in a different part of the globe. The first of these articles,
Agroforetsry and the Development of Rural written by Festus Akinnifesi, summarizes aspects of the domestication of wild fruit
communities in Bolivia’s Northern Amazon.........18 trees promoted by ICRAF in Southern Africa.
Advances in Colombia’s Amazon Agroforestry In this newsletter you will find short articles presenting agroforestry activities in
Alliance Network (RAAA-C)...............................19 Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador. The section featuring ICRAF Partner
Institutions presents the work of the Ecuadorian INIAP, and we take the opportunity
Database: Agroforestry Publications in the Brazilian
to congratulate the institution for its 50th anniversary! The Northern Bolivian
Amazon..............................................................20
Amazon is the relevant Agroforestry Context presented in this issue, highlighting the
work of IPHAE. Agroforestry Projects featured in this issue include the work of
Sourcebook on Funding for Sustainable Forest
Management......................................................22 Colombia's Universidad de la Amazonia on silvopastoral systems, and the effective
contribution of the Agroforestry component in the UNDP/GEF project carried out in
Publishing results of your agroforestry research ...23 the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Several aspects of the work of ICRAF in the Amazon
and its partners are presented across three articles focused on the Peruvian Amazon.
ICRAF LA publishes Technical Manuals.......24
As the Agroforestry Species highlighted in this issue, the reader will become familiar
with the potential uses of camu-camu (Myrciaria dubia).
Amazon Agroforestry
The component on Agroforestry Knowledge and Opportunities is intended to
Year I – Edition 2
provide useful insights to those in academic and research institutions. To this end, in
December 2009
addition to informing on relevant events, opportunities, and publications, we
Editor: Roberto Porro continue disseminating our Agroforestry Bibliographic Database, currently being
Graphic Design: Eugenia Isnardi (AI) and Reagan Sirengo (ICRAF) expanded with publications from the Colombian Amazon. In sum, with the
Cover Photos: Brendan Rohr
integration of multiple perspectives and dimensions related to the science and
practice of Agroforestry, we expect to effectively contribute with enhanced lives and
Collaborated in this edition: Brendan Rohr, Jamie Cotta, Meghan Doiron,
and Paulo Alves. landscapes in the Amazon.
Roberto Porro
Address: ICRAF – Consórcio Iniciativa Amazônica.
Embrapa Amazônia Oriental – Trav Enéas Pinheiro s/n.
Regional Coordinator
Belém (PA). Brasil. 66095-100
ICRAF-Amazon
www.worldagroforestrycentre.org
Amazon Agroforestry is a publication for free distribution produced by ICRAF-Amazon. Total or partial
Questions, comments, or suggestions, please send to: [email protected]
reproduction of materials contained in this publication is permitted for non-commercial use, as long as the source
is mentioned. All of the images contained within the publication are the exclusive property of their respective
On the cover: Bolaina seed orchad (background) and Peruvian farmer
sources, and their use is not permitted without written consent. The information provided herein is true to the best
showing cocoa tree (Pucallpa, Peru).
of ICRAF's knowledge. ICRAF will not be held responsible for damages resulting from the use of this information.
2
AGROFORESTRY OPINION
Agroforestry systems and the environment
Marc Dourojeanni
Independent Consultant
It is likely that many have heard the term “agroforestry” without being exactly clear on its meaning. Such uncertainty is
understandable, as the practice is still being defined today, with different people often settling on inconsistent and sometimes even
contradictory definitions. While certain forms of agroforestry are indeed as ancient as humankind itself, the practice is nonetheless
aided by new scientific and technological advances that have granted it a special role in the struggle to improve the quality of
human life. Unfortunately, as always seems to be the case, there exist those intents on taking advantage of this opportunity to justify
new aggressions against the environment.
“Agroforestry” and “agrosilviculture” are terms given to land-use options that combine benefits and products derived from trees
with those obtained from agriculture, all occurring within the same space or rural unit. A typical agroforestry system includes a
relatively thin spread of trees, beneath which are grown smaller crop plants, like
coffee or cocoa, and/or herbaceous crops such as corn or beans. The system can
“Given the breadth of
also include pasture and livestock, as is seen in the Mediterranean olive plantations
where, beneath the trees, grasses and agroforestry land-use other edible plants are grown to feed a variety
of domestic animals. In fact, possible combinations of trees, shrubs and
worldwide and coupled
herbaceous plants are many, and as a result humans worldwide have benefited
from a wide variety of agroforestry with its enormous potential systems.
for expansion, scientists
It was in the 1960’s that scientists first began to understand, through the
see the practice as a
observation of farmers, the special value of agroforestry systems as sources of
diverse environmental services and as a significant source of sustainable form of production. Increasing
attention to the practice led to the establishment in 1978 of the International
carbon capture and
Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), better known today as the World
Agroforestry Centre. Since its fixation that will only establishment, ICRAF has been at the
forefront of an agroforestry movement increase in future years”. that promises to become a pillar of
sustainable development in rural areas. Thousands of projects – financed by millions
of dollars in investments – are now being implemented throughout the world,
adding to the efforts of millions of families already involved in agroforestry. Just
last August the Second World Congress of Agroforestry took place in Nairobi, Kenya, with the participation of more than 1400
people – an accomplishment that would have been unthinkable just 20 years ago.
At its most basic, agrosilviculture has been grouped into two categories: that which is developed in the same space at the same time
(spatial), and that which is developed more or less in the same space, but at different times (temporal). A typical example of the
former is the stratified use of trees for shade to protect smaller coffee or cocoa plants, and eventually grass to feed a small number of
cattle. A common example of the latter is the use of rotations beginning with the cutting down of original forest. Once the soil is
exhausted, it is given a prolonged resting period to allow for the reemergence of secondary forest vegetation. This secondary
vegetation, through various natural mechanisms, reestablishes the soil’s fertility, and when this occurs the vegetation is cut once
more to allow for a second phase of harvest. This form of cultivation is known as slash and burn, and generally constitutes a type of
migratory agriculture.
The recognized benefits of the first system type are many. To begin, it can add the productive capacities of trees (timber, fruits, resins,
etc.) to those of crops, thus diversifying harvests. The practice can also benefit certain crops by offering protective shade and
recycled nutrients. In addition, large trees protect soils against water and wind erosion, preserving soil fertility.
Agroforestry systems cannot be easily mechanized, and resulting labor needs benefit rural areas with dense, poor populations. And
while agroforestry systems may offer smaller crop harvests than do traditional monoculture practices, the loss is made up for by
added tree products. Trees also contribute by reducing costs related to fertilizers and other inputs due to enhanced conservation of
soils and water, and larger numbers of species per unit of area can contribute to the natural control of disease. As such, the net
benefit of agrosilviculture can be higher than that of conventional agriculture. Even more, those practicing agrosilviculture enjoy a
higher quality of life due to diversification and sustainability of production.
At present, additional benefits are coming to light. Various studies have demonstrated the role of agroforestry systems for
hydrographic basins within the greater landscape, helping to guard against water crises. Furthermore, agroforestry maintains a level
of biodiversity that, although not equal to that of natural forests, is nevertheless much higher than that found in simple agriculture
systems. Yet perhaps most importantly, given the breadth of agroforestry land-use worldwide and coupled with its enormous
potential for expansion, scientists see the practice as a significant source of carbon capture and fixation that will only increase in
3
future years. Agroforestry systems should therefore expand beyond a simple rural context to assume a much more substantial role
among recognized alternatives for minimizing negative effects of climate change. As such, agroforestry is increasingly present in
discussions concerning clean development mechanisms, particularly since these systems consume considerably less energy than
traditional, open-field systems.
Yet despite considerable benefits to the widespread adoption of agroforestry, there is a worrisome issue that must be addressed
concerning acceptable forms of the practice – specifically, the above-mentioned slash-and-burn activities that are all too often
labeled as agrosilviculture. The practice, often described as a temporal or rotational form of agroforestry, raises considerable
doubts. To begin, native forest is eliminated. Soon thereafter, once the crops are abandoned and the secondary forest becomes
important, the new growth is also eliminated and burned, releasing carbon into the atmosphere. As such, there is no environmental
gain to the activity. How, then, can the practice be called agroforestry?
To answer this question, one must examine similar activities of traditional indigenous groups in the tropics. In the past, slash-and-
burn practices seemed sensible among small, isolated groups with a “rotation” system of hunting and farming territories. These
groups were in fact so few that their overall environmental impact was insignificant, allowing tribal peoples to benefit from such
practices without deforesting large areas. Nevertheless, these same activities are now carried out over hundreds of thousands of
hectares annually, constituting a highly damaging form of migratory agriculture, notably responsible for the infamous “arc of fire” in
the Amazon. While destructive slash-and-burn activities are technically illegal, global socio-environmental standards
unfortunately label them as a form of traditional agroforestry.
It is this same socio-environmentalist school of thought, in fact, that labels intensive, mechanized agriculture a crime while refusing
to acknowledge that slash-and-burn farmers are responsible for just as much damage – if not more – as they typically occupy areas
generally not valued for agricultural use. Indeed, they waste good land with insignificant production, and fail to respect any
regulations. Both these forms of agriculture eliminate forest, and are therefore inferior to the basic idea of agrosilviculture that
consists of increasing the density of trees in lands previously set aside for agriculture and livestock. Nonetheless, the twisted idea
that slash-and-burn farming qualifies as agroforestry has corrupted accepted definitions of the practice, serving as yet another
social excuse for absurd and imprudent deforestation.
Most disturbing, however, are the recent modifications to Brazil’s “Forest Code”, permitting the practice of agrosilviculture within
legal reserves and areas under permanent protection. These reserves were created to maintain a balance between farming activities
and native or reestablished forests. According to law, permanent areas of preservation are necessary to protect soils and water
resources, as well as biodiversity. Yet the socio-environmentalist movement, allied with producers, has peddled the curious notion
that agrosilviculture will improve the protective function of forests by cutting down a portion of trees and planting crops beneath
those that remain – in other words, doing exactly the opposite of what agrosilviculture truly proposes, which is to enrich existing
agricultural lands with trees.
ICRAF and other agroforestry specialists must pay careful attention to these concerning issues, and should consider readjusting
definitions to better define objectives and avoid confusion. Otherwise, they may threaten to diminish all of those proven qualities
and benefits of true agroforestry practices, and even put at risk the terrific idea of using agroforestry to combat climate change.

Brazil seems to be the only country in the world that has taken such a misguided approach to defining agroforestry. All other
countries with specific agroforestry legislation – and there are many – have promoted only those systems considered spatial, and
never those considered sequential. Their objective is shared and straightforward – to increase the presence of trees in rural
landscapes.
As scientists have demonstrated, this rural development option is clearly sustainable and promises to confront problems resulting
from global warming, energy crises, water shortages and the loss of precious biodiversity. Nonetheless, echoing the words of
renowned ecologist Philip Fearnside, we must not allow agrosilviculture to become just another pretext for further destroying and
degrading our remaining forests.
* A previous version of this article was published in Portuguese at the "O Eco" virtual newsletter.
F)
A
R
C
(IO
TIT
M.
: S
O
OT
H
P
M. Dourojeanni (left) receiving an award in recognition to his participation as a key-note speaker in the 2nd. World Congress of Agroforestry.
4
INSTITUTIONAL
ICRAF Amazon presents its growing role in
two major
P
H
O
TO
S
Agroforestry events : B
. R
O
H
R
This edition highlights the institutional participation of
ICRAF Latin America in two major Agroforestry events that
took place in 2009, the Brazilian and the World Agroforestry
Congresses.
ICRAF's participation in the 7th Brazilian Congress of
Agroforestry Systems
During the week of June 22-26, the 7th Brazilian Congress of
Agroforestry Systems was held near the capital city of
Brasilia. The congress' theme, “Dialogue and integration of
knowledge in agroforestry systems for sustainable societies”,
went to the heart of ICRAF's mission of promoting tree-based
solutions to the global problems of rural poverty, hunger and
ICRAF Amazon’s stand at the 7th. Brazilian Congress of Agroforestry
environmental degradation.
Among more than 300 participants attending the Congress
were producers, researchers, students, professors and
government officials representing 24 of the 26 Brazilian
states and eight different countries. The 5-day event,
comprised of panels, presentations and technical visits to
local sites where agroforestry is practiced, covered a diverse
spectrum of topics ranging from “Agroforestry systems and
climate change” to “Gender issues in agroforestry systems.”
In addition, the Congress provided an excellent opportunity
for ICRAF to showcase its growing role in Latin America.
ICRAF sponsored a seminar titled “Agroforestry networks
and experiences in the Amazon.” The event featured 11
speakers from different Amazonian regions of Brazil and
neighboring countries, including Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador,
Colombia and Venezuela. The speakers, many of whom
recently participated in a series of workshops of the
“Amazon Agroforestry Alliances” (AAA) – organized by Book-launching event at the 7th. Brazilian Congress of Agroforestry
ICRAF and other institutions comprising the Amazon
Initiative (AI) Consortium – shed light on issues common to P
H
O
producers throughout Amazonia as well as issues unique to TO
each particular region. A book-launching event was : M. T
organized for several new publications authored and edited ITO
by ICRAF researchers. In addition to these two events in (IC
R
A
which it assumed a leading role, ICRAF also ran a booth F
)
which became a focal point for Congress attendees taking an
interest in the Centre's work in Latin America. Throughout the
week, ICRAF representatives distributed literature and
shared information about the Centre's vision and efforts on
the local, regional and global levels.
Presence of ICRAF Latin America in the 2nd World
Agroforestry Congress
Co-hosted by the World Agroforestry Centre and the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the 2nd World (Left to right) R. Porro, A. Meza, O. Llanque, J. Cotta, B. Ramírez, R. Maneschi
and J. Ugarte at World Congress of Agroforestry 2009
5
F)
A
R
C
(IO
TIT
M.
: S
O
OT
H
P
2nd. World Congress of Agroforestry - Plenary Session
Congress of Agroforestry took place in Nairobi, Kenya from 23-28 August 2009. The Congress overall theme, Agroforestry: The
Future of Global Land Use attracted a capacity audience of 1400 delegates including researchers, educators, practitioners and
policy makers from around the world, who shared new research ideas and experiences, explored partnership opportunities and
established or strengthened communities of practice. Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai gave a key note speech emphasizing a call
on the developed nations to reduce their emissions and support 'green' projects in Africa. The congress, included concurrent
sessions and technical symposia on the sub-themes of Food Security and Livelihoods, Conservation and Rehabilitation of Natural
Resources, and Policies and Institutions.
Presentations delivered at technical session “Agroforestry-based Livelihood
ICRAF Latin America sponsored a side event Strategies for Smallholders in the Amazon”:
during the Congress, featuring the presentation
Evaluation of Biological and Economic Parameters of Agroforestry Systems:
and launching of publications including the edit
Promoting Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in the Frontier Forests of
volume “The Agroforestry Alternative for a
Northwest Mato Grosso, Brazil. (Jorge Luis Vivan, Brazil)
Transforming Amazon,” and the “Guide for the
Determination of Carbon in Small Farms,” along
Browsing Effects of Sheep and Cattle on an Innovative Agro-Silvo-Pastoral System for
with the “Amazon Agroforestry Publications Smallholders in the Northeastern Amazon. (Stefan Hohnwald. Institute of
Database. In addition, a technical session entitled Geography, University of Gottingen, Germany)
“Agroforestry-based Livelihood Strategies for
Smallholders in the Amazon” was successfully Contribution of Forest Products and Agroforestry to Livelihoods of Indigenous and
organized with the delivery of eight presentations Colonist Communities in the Peruvian Amazon. (Abel Meza. World Agroforestry
Centre, Peru)
on case studies from different Amazonian socio-
cultural settings in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, and
Description of homegardens in Araçá Indigenous Land, in the Lavrado (savannas) of
Peru. The presenters, listed below, examined key
Roraima, Brazil. (Robert P. Miller. FUNAI, Brazil)
aspects of the livelihood strategies adopted by
smallholders and indigenous communities in the Related Forestry, Agriculture and Agroforestry Activities in Livelihoods of
Amazon. The diverse, complex, innovative, and Smallholders in the Amazon of North Bolivia. (Oscar Llanque-Espinoza.
constantly adapting strategies revealed the great Universidad Autónoma del Beni, Bolivia)
potential for agroforestry research and
development to contribute for the broader Cocoa-based Agroforestry and Community-company Agreements for Forest
Management: Livelihood Strategies to Reduce Deforestation in the Transamazon.
adoption of livelihood-enhancing sustainable
(Noemi S. Miyasaka Porro. Federal University of Pará, Brazil)
land use systems in distinct Amazonian contexts.
A discussion that followed the presentations
Multi-strata Agroforestry Systems as an Alternative for Slash-and-burn Farming in the
pointed out the greater challenge of identifying
Peruvian Amazon. (Bohdan Lojka. Czech University of Life Sciences Prague,
soil fertility enhancement practices that would Czech Republic)
allow more intensive systems, and the integration
of such systems into adequate environmental, The Role of Agroforestry-based Practices in Shaping Policies and Programs for Legal
agrarian and agricultural/forestry policies and Smallholder Livelihoods in the Colombian Amazon. (Bertha Leonor Ramírez Pava.
programs, for which proper amounts and formats Universidad de la Amazonia, Colombia)
of rural credit are required.
6
I
C
R
Ecuador’s National Forestry Program:
A
F
a research and development initiative in agroforestry

P
A
and natural resource management
R
Jorge Eduardo Grijalva OlmedoT
Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIAP)N
E
Forest destruction is one of the greatest environmental problems worldwide. In Latin America, net forest loss between 2000 and R
2005 rose to 4.3 million hectares (FAO, 2005). In Ecuador annual deforestation rate is close to 230 thousand hectares

I
(approximately 1.5 percent of forest cover). More than 70% of commercialized timber in the country is illegal and comes from the N
humid tropical forests of Amazon and the green Esmeraldas. These figures reveal a complex duality: poverty and natural resources,
S
and draws attention to the risk of losing natural patrimony in a short amount of time, and severely exacerbating poverty and food
T
insecurity.
I
T
On the other hand, the country has a competitive advantage for forest products. Ecuador's geographical location and climatic U
conditions make it a country with potential to excel in this industry as a means of generating capital and guaranteeing food security
T
for its population and the conservation of natural resources. The forestry sector contributes $US 450 million to national GDP,
I
generates employment to near 200 thousand people and contributes to an approximate $US 100 million of annual exports. Some O
54% of the tropical forested land is owned by 11 indigenous groups, most of them low-income. By contrast, industrial timber N
groups control a mere 0.2% of forests and use 10-15% of the timber for industrial interests and exports. The remaining wood goes to
S
sawmills, furniture, carpentry, and other similar industries. Yet, in many cases some 30% of the original standing biomass remains
unused on the ground, denoting a low efficiency in the use of forest resources. These facts justify the importance and priority given
by Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIAP) to Forestry & Agroforestry Research, through the recent
creation (January 2006) of the national Forestry Research Program. In a relatively short period, INIAP's program has stimulated
several research initiatives in Ecuador's Upland, Coastal, and Amazon regions.
One of the Program's priority in the Amazon is finding alternative uses for degraded forest lands. The indigenous chakra system
represents an integrated alternative that combines production and conservation attributes. Another priority is enhancing the
national production of cocoa, which constitutes one of the preferred options being evaluated and disseminated by the communities
themselves. Ecuador's superior aromatic coca is produced under shade and combined with valued timber species such as red cedar
(Cedrela odorata), mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), laurel (Cordia alliodora), chuncho (Cedrelinga cateniformis). Still other
priority is the promotion and search for alternatives to enhance livestock by establishing silvopastoral systems as a strategy to
eradicate or reduce deforestation and contribute to mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts.
In the Andean eco-region, the program is researching agroforestry alternatives that contribute to the management and conservation
of upland Andean watersheds. Among these, research priority has been given to silvopastoral systems based on Lolium and
Trifolium associated to native woody species such as yagual (Polylepis racemosa), guishuar (Buddleia incana) and colle (Buddleja
coriacea) as well as other agroforestry alternatives with aliso (Alnus acuminate), acacia (Acacia melanoxylum), and retama
(Sparteum junceum). Similarily, the program favors the development of methodologies to estimate the carbon sequestration
potential of agroforestry systems and the generation of quantitative information useful for designing mechanisms for the
compensation and/or payment for environmental services derived from the biomass of agroforestry systems and from forests.
Recent regional collaborative actions have been promoted through the adoption and adaptation of models, to assess the impact of
P
climate change on the natural distribution, and the persistence and adaptation of economically important agricultural crops for H
O
cfohoadn gseecs.u Trhitiys. aScpteiocnif ihca fso tchues p isu rgpivoesne otof dfoerseigstn sipnegc ainesd wprhoopsoes minigg araptpiorno parniadt ea dmauplttai-tlieovne cl aapltaecrnitayt icvaens bthea st lcoownetrri btou etev eton rtuedalu ccliinmga thtiec : J. GTO
R
impact of global climate change on small-scale agriculture. IJALV
A
(IN
In the dry forest eco-region of the Ecuadorian coast, the Forestry Program aims to generate alternatives to recuperate and preserve IA
P
)
woody species in danger of extinction, primarily balsam (Myroxylum peruiferum), moral fino (Maclura tinctoria) and amarillo
(Centrolobium ochroxylum), with the intention of recuperating degraded drylands.
7
Y Bringing Wild Fruit Trees into
R
T
Cultivation in Southern Africa
S
E Festus K. Akinnifesi
R World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
O
Introduction
F
O
The harvesting, utilization and marketing of indigenous fruit and nuts have been central to the
R
livelihoods of majority of rural communities throughout Africa. It represents an important
G
livelihood boost, in terms of diet supplement and cash income generation for many rural
A PHOTOS: F. Akinnifesi (ICRAF) community dwellers in Africa. Indigenous fruit remains one of the major options for coping with
hunger, nutritional deficiency in diets and poverty in the region. The Miombo fruits in particular
L
are known to play crucial role at the periods of famine in southern Africa, and their availability
A
could make a difference between life and death, in some places during such critical time. They
B also provide rural income and employment opportunities especially for women, and substantial
O rural revenue could be generated by communities through fruit processing. Because most fruits
consumed and sold still come from the wild, uncontrolled wild harvesting using inadequate
L
harvesting techniques and over-exploitation may lead to shortage in supply. Efficiency of fruit
G
processing industry is however, thwarted by lack of supply of primary products (raw material) or
intermediate products, and medium scale-entrepreneurs complains about their dependence on
imports. This is because supplies are based on importation of exotic fruit concentrates only.
Prioritizing Miombo fruit trees
We identified more than 75 indigenous fruit tree (IFT) species as important to rural communities.
In series of species prioritization surveys in five countries, we determined farmers preferences
based on their use and market We found that Uapaca kirkiana, Parinari curatellifolia, Strychnos
cocculoides, Ziziphus mauritiana, Adansonia digitata (baobab) and Sclerocarya birrea were
preferred and identified as priority species for domestication. Updated studies also recognized
the effects of location, sample size, temporal dynamics, socio-economic and ecological niches
on users choices (see Akinnifesi et al, 2008). In addition, users generally prefer exotic fruits such
as mango, citrus, avocado and banana, which are among the top ten preferred fruits. We learnt
that farmer preferences alone cannot inform on market demand as several highly prioritized
fruits have low markets, e.g. S. cocculoides, Vangueria infausta and P. curatellifolia. Also fruits
with high potential markets such as S. birrea, U. kirkiana and A. digitata are not cultivated by
farmers. Priority setting needs to distinguish between preferences for household consumption
and market opportunities, and must consider changing needs of users, increased awareness and
emerging opportunities.
Propagation of indigenous fruit trees
Clonal propagation approach was used to multiply and produce quality germplasms, especially
using grafting and marcottage (air-layering) to address long juvenility problem in many fruit
trees. We induced precocity (early fruiting) and other desirable attributes have been obtained
through vegetative propagation methods (Figure 1). Our research showed that success in grafting
depends on the skill of the grafters, time of the year when the scion is collected and the interval
between scion collection and grafting. In addition, a tissue culture aided study was used to
detect early graft incompatibility in U. kirkiana, which tends to increase with hererographs rather
than homografts between U. kirkiana provenances. At the nursery, tree survival rates were high
for grafted A. digitata (100% in Zambia) and S. birrea (90% in Tanzania), but low for S.
cocculoides (40% in Zambia). The survival rate of field established marcots of U. kirkiana was
less than 60% in Malawi and declined with time due to poor root development. Whereas,
grafted trees had survival rate of 67% in U. kirkiana compared to 98% in M. indica.
Field management studies showed that early nutrient and water requirements of miombo IFTs
differ from exotic fruit trees. Unlike mango, application of fertilizer, manure or irrigation did not
increase growth or survival of U. kirkiana and S. birrea. This is contrary to the widely held views
that IFTs could be managed in the same way as exotic tree crops. On the other hand, the fruit
abundance was enhanced by fertilizer applications and manure.
Figure 1: A Clonally propagated fruit
orchard of Uapaca kirkiana
8
Participatory domestication and new cultivar development
To select superior germplasm of indigenous fruits from the wild, we employed participatory
domestication approach that capitalized on the knowledge of rural dwellers--farmers,
vendors, fruit collectors and school children in different locations. Desirable superior fruit
and tree attributes were defined and market-oriented ideotype attributes were jointly
identified in focused group discussions. Tree-to-tree variations were captured in the wild
populations with the local knowledge from the rural communities through brainstorming.
This extensive Participatory Rural Appraisal was used to identify superior cultivars based on
phenotypic variation. Seeds and scions were collected for multip lication in the nurseries.
More than 300 superior cultivars were identified in the region and some of these are being
tested in clonal stands in Malawi. Through selection and propagation of elite genotypes from
the wild, new phenotypes with superior marketable products with respect to fruit size,
sweetness, fruit load and improved uniformity could be obtained.
Product and enterprise development
Magomero women processing group, Malawi
There has been relatively little work on product development and market standards. Hence
new innovative research and development efforts are needed to bring about improvements in
cultivation, scaling up, market and small-scale enterprises. The share of market margins for
selling U. kirkiana fruits was estimated in Zimbabwe at 32-45% for collectors, 53% for
retailers, and 2% for wholesalers (trades in bulk) (Ramadhani, 2002). The feasibility result
showed that net profit for processing indigenous fruits into concentrates in Malawi, Tanzania
and Zimbabwe reached 28%, especially in locations close to the markets. Commoditizing
indigenous fruit trees as new tree crops involves a long-term iterative and integrated strategy
of tree selection and improvement, utilization and marketing of selected products and their
integration into agroforestry practices.

In sum, expansion of markets and availability of quality indigenous fruit germplasm and
products would be major drivers for increased investment by the private sector in the
production and commercialization of new crops. Crop for the future emerging from this
domestication research for development should aim at meeting farmer needs and market
demand, create or expand market opportunities through superior germplasms and products,
including fresh fruit and market ideotypes.
Chitedze Research station
References
Akinnifesi, F.K., R.R.B. Leakey, O.C. Ajayi, G. Sileshi, Z. Tchoundjeu, P. Matakala and F.R.
Kwesiga (2008), Indigenous Fruit Trees in the Tropics: Domestication, Utilization and
Commercialization. World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi. CAB International Publishing, Wallingford,
UK.
Ramadhani, T. (2002) Marketing of indigenous fruits in Zimbabwe. Socio-economic Studies on
Rural Development, Vol 129. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk. Kiel, Germany.
Ziziphus jelly
Wines from wild fruits, Zambia
9
ICRAF IN THE AMAZON
Launching of Multistrata Agroforestry
Technology in Peru
Julio Alegre
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina
During an official ceremony at the San Ramon experimental station on August 14, 2009, the director of Peru's National Institute of
Agrarian Innovation (INIA), Dr. Juan Risi, handed over a publication with the technical record of multistrata agroforestry systems to
regional authorities, in a ceremony that was attended by over 250 producers and technicians throughout the region.
After 23 years of persistent and dedicated work, tropical soils specialist Dr. Julio Alegre, a former ICRAF senior scientist, with the
help of a number of national and international researchers, was able to consolidate the launching of the technology for application
in the Peruvian Amazon. The technology aims to recuperate lands degraded through slash-and-burn agriculture through the
integration of annual crops with trees, grasses and animals in a sustainable productive system.
The multistrata agroforestry system project was started in 1985 by Peru's INIA, with support from North Carolina State University
(NCSU) and subsequently from the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). The experiment was carried out in INIA's San Ramon
experimental station in Yurimaguas (Loreto region), Peru. “The results come from 23 long years of research” says Dr. Alegre, whose
collaboration with NCSU and ICRAF dates back to the project's initial stages.
The experiment was carried out on an area of degraded soil distinguished by its acidity, a lack of phosphorous, calcium, magnesium
and potassium, and high concentrations of aluminum – a toxic mix for most commercial crops. The area had been previously
dominated by ten-year-old secondary forest that was slashed and burned in order to plant rice and cassava, and then left as fallow.
This slash-and-burn, migratory form of agriculture predominates in Amazonia and in regions of Africa and Asia.

The primary crops planted in the abandoned slash-and-burn terrain were rice (Oriza sativa L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata).
Rice was planted during the most humid months (October-April) while cowpea was planted between May and July. The selected
tree species – tornillo (Cedrelinga cateniformis) , peach palm (Bactris gasipaes) and ice-cream bean (Inga Edulis) – were planted a
month after the planting of rice. Fruit species such as araza (Eugenia stipitata) and rapid-growth timber species such as shaina
(Colubrina glandulosa) were planted 20 months later, after rice and cowpea were harvested. Ground cover (Centrosema
macrocarpum) was included to keep the area free of weeds and to help with the recycling of nitrogen-based nutrients. Coffee
(Coffea arabica L.) was also planted. In this way, an “intelligent” stratification of trees and crops was achieved by establishing three
levels: a lower strata composed of araza and coffee; an intermediate strata composed of ice-cream bean, peach palm and shaina;
and an upper strata composed of forest species with high commercial value, including tornillo.

The objective of such stratification is to make the system sustainable, and therefore each plant, tree and crop is strategically placed
to promote a harmonious development among all species, taking full advantage of distributions of light, water and nutrients, and
withPh odtoi:f fMe. rTeitont species benefitting one another. According to Dr. Alegre, “We have witnessed the successful cohabitation of up to
100 tornillo trees and more than 650 total plants in just one hectare”. This promises a long-term economic return on the
commercialization of tornillo, whose wood is valued at approximately US$1,000 per tree. Alegre added that tornillo timber can be
harvested after 22-25 years of growth – considerably sooner than the 30 year time period commonly believed. The commercial
value of other species is also quite noteworthy. Peach palm, for example, renders “heart of palm” – a product highly
commercialized on the global market. Peach palm fruit can also be commercialized as different sub-products, such as peach palm
flour and concentrations for animal feed.
The multistrata agroforestry system ensures not only economic benefits for local communities through the sale of crops and timber,
but also helps to conserve the environment and generates globally-valued environmental services by avoiding indiscriminate burns
that result from migratory agriculture. “It is estimated that each year 250,000 hectares of Peruvian Amazon forest fall victim to slash-
and-burn practices, only to later be abandoned” says Alegre, who calculates that each hectare of the system sequesters or fixes
between 8 and 10 tons of carbon per year, representing a three-fold decrease of CO2 emitted per ton of carbon sequestered. So
there are very good mitigation alternatives against climate change through the recovering of degraded tropical lands with the
scaling up of agroforestry systems.
10