Scanning agroforestry-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Europe

Agroforestry, the integration of trees and shrubs with livestock and/or crops, can make a substantial contribution to mitigating and enabling adaptation to climate change. However, its full potential will only be achieved if the challenges to agroforestry implementation are identified and the most efficient and sustainable solutions are made widely known. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore these challenges and to determine the most suitable set of solutions for each challenge that combines local effectiveness with European scale relevance. We performed a two-step “solution scanning” exercise. First, the main challenges to sustainable agroforestry in Europe were identified through 42 participatory workshops with 665 local stakeholders. The solutions to each challenge were scanned and classified into either direct solutions (28) to address climate change or indirect solutions (32) that improve the sustainability of agroforestry. In a second step, the direct solutions were prioritized through expert consultation in terms of their potential benefits for mitigation and adaptation. The most commonly reported barriers were a lack of knowledge and reliable financial support to which the most widely suggested indirect solutions were agroforestry training programmes and the development of safe economic routes. The direct solutions considered as holding the greatest mitigation and adaptation potential were the adoption of practices capable to increase soil organic carbon pools and the implementation of multifunctional hedgerows and windbreaks respectively. Our solution scanning approach can inform the implementation of the European climate strategy in general and to the Common Agricultural Policy in particular by pointing to concrete climate beneficial actions

Modelling tree density effects on provisioning ecosystem services in Europe

Agroforestry systems, in which trees are integrated in arable or pasture land, can be used to enable sustainable food, material, and energy production (i.e. provide provisioning ecosystem services) whilst reducing the negative environmental impacts associated with farming. However, one constraint on the uptake of agroforestry in Europe is a lack of knowledge on how specific agroforestry designs affect productivity. A process-based biophysical model, called Yield-SAFE, was used: (1) to quantify the food, material and biomass energy production of four contrasting case study systems in Europe in a common energy unit (MJ ha−1), and (2) to quantify how tree density determined the supply of provisioning ecosystem services. The Yield-SAFE model was calibrated so that simulated tree and crop growth fitted observed growth data for reference monoculture forestry, pasture, and arable systems. The modelled results showed that including trees in pasture or arable systems increased the overall accumulated energy of the system in comparison with monoculture forestry, pasture, and arable systems, but that the accumulated energy per tree was reduced as tree density increased. The greatest accumulated energy occurred in the highest tree density agroforestry system at all the case study sites. This suggests that the capture of environmental resources, such as light and water, for obtaining provisioning services is most effective in high density agroforestry systems. Further modelling should include tree canopy effects on micro-climatic and the impact this has on pasture, crop, and livestock yields, as well as the impact of tree density on the economic value and management of the different systems

Farmers' reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: evidence from multiple case-studies across Europe

Potential benefits and costs of agroforestry practices have been analysed by experts, but few studies have captured farmers’ perspectives on why agroforestry might be adopted on a European scale. This study provides answers to this question, through an analysis of 183 farmer interviews in 14 case study systems in eight European countries. The study systems included high natural and cultural value agroforestry systems, silvoarable systems, high value tree systems, and silvopasture systems, as well as systems where no agroforestry practices were occurring. A mixed method approach combining quantitative and qualitative approaches was taken throughout the interviews. Narrative thematic data analysis was performed. Data collection proceeded until no new themes emerged. Within a given case study, i.e. the different systems in different European regions, this sampling was performed both for farmers who practice agroforestry and farmers who did not. Results point to a great diversity of agroforestry practices, although many of the farmers are not aware of the term or concept of agroforestry, despite implementing the practice in their own farms. While only a few farmers mentioned eligibility for direct payments in the CAP as the main reason to remove trees from their land, to avoid the reduction of the funded area, the tradition in the family or the region, learning from others, and increasing the diversification of products play the most important role in adopting or not agroforestry systems

Challenges and innovations for improving the resilience of European agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value: a stakeholder perspective

Traditional forms of agroforestry are often recognized as exemplar systems that successfully integrate food production, biodiversity conservation and high cultural values. However many traditional agroforestry systems in Europe are in decline or are threatened and the perspectives of local stakeholders on the production, management, socio-economic, and environmental dimensions of such systems are not fully understood. To fill this gap, we present results of participatory research performed with ten stakeholder groups (SG) across Europe to search for solutions to improve the economic and ecological sustainability of High Nature and Cultural Value agroforestry systems (HNCV agroforestry). Stakeholders included both users and beneficiaries of the HNCV agroforestry. First, SGs held open discussions (227 participants) to identify major challenges for the long-term sustainability of HNCV agroforestry. Challenges were classified into production, management, socio-economic and the environment categories. Second, they responded to structured questionnaires (120 respondents) that explored the positive and negative perceptions of 45 possible attributes of HNCV agroforestry. Third, innovative solutions were identified by individual and group discussions to address the four categories of challenge. Challenges were mostly identified for the management and socio-economic categories, but several challenges concerning production and environment were also pinpointed. Besides, solutions matched poorly with the challenges identified, and, while challenges were at some extent common across countries, solutions to address them were more case-specific. The successful implementation of these solutions requires an in-depth understanding of the diversity of socio-cultural and natural contexts of the HNCV agroforestry systems and building bottom-up proposals and collective actions based on this understanding. The sustainability of HNCV agroforestry would be benefited by providing farmers and managers with a financial advantage from the high nature and cultural value of these systems

How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders

Whilst the benefits of agroforestry are widely recognised in tropical latitudes few studies have assessed how agroforestry is perceived in temperate latitudes. This study evaluates how stakeholders and key actors including farmers, landowners, agricultural advisors, researchers and environmentalists perceive the implementation and expansion of agroforestry in Europe. Meetings were held with 30 stakeholder groups covering different agroforestry systems in 2014 in eleven EU countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). In total 344 valid responses were received to a questionnaire where stakeholders were asked to rank the positive and negative aspects of implementing agroforestry in their region. Improved biodiversity and wildlife habitats, animal health and welfare, and landscape aesthetics were seen as the main positive aspects of agroforestry. By contrast, increased labour, complexity of work, management costs and administrative burden were seen as the most important negative aspects. Overall, improving the environmental value of agriculture was seen as the main benefit of agroforestry, whilst management and socio-economic issues were seen as the greatest barriers. The great variability in the opportunities and barriers of the systems suggests enhanced adoption of agroforestry across Europe will be most likely to occur with specific initiatives for each type of system