News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Agriculture protecting and growing the world's trees 

Agriculture protecting and growing the world's trees

22 Sep, 2009 10:35 AM
ALTHOUGH agriculture, particularly in the developing world, is often associated with massive deforestation, scientists from the World Agroforestry Centre have demonstrated in a study using detailed satellite imagery that almost half of all farmed landscapes worldwide include significant tree cover.

The findings were announced at the second World Congress of Agroforestry, held last month in Nairobi, Kenya.

The World Agroforestry Centre is one of 15 centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.

This is the first study to quantify the extent to which trees are a vital part of agricultural production in all regions of the world. It reveals that on more than 1 billion hectares - which make up 46 per cent of the world's farmlands and are home to more than a half-billion people - tree cover exceeds 10pc.

"The area revealed in this study is twice the size of the Amazon and shows that farmers are protecting and planting trees spontaneously," said Dennis Garrity, director general of the center.

"The problem is that policy-makers and planners have been slow to recognise this phenomenon and take advantage of the beneficial effect of planting trees on farms.

"Trees are providing farmers with everything from carbon sequestration to nuts and fruits, to windbreaks and erosion control, to fuel for heating and timber for housing.

"Unless such practices are brought to scale in farming communities worldwide, we will not benefit from the full value trees can bring to livelihoods and landscapes."

From the data presented in the study, the researchers said it is not possible, in all cases, to discern precisely the products and services trees provide.

However, a great deal of previous agroforestry research has documented a wide range of uses for trees on farms, including: fertiliser trees for improving crop yields and enhancing soil health, fruit trees for nutrition, fodder trees to feed livestock, timber and fuel-wood trees to provide shelter and energy, medicinal trees and trees that provide global commodities such as coffee, rubber, nuts, gums and resins.

As equally important on the service side are uses such as erosion control, water quality and biodiversity.

"If planted systematically on farms, trees could improve the resiliency of farmers by providing them with food and income," said Tony Simons, deputy director general at the World Agroforestry Centre.

"For example, when crops and livestock fail, trees often withstand drought conditions and allow people to hold over until the next season."

Previous estimates for the amount of farmland devoted to agroforestry have ranged from as low as 50,000 hectares to as high as 307 million hectares.

However, these estimates were not derived from detailed remote sensing data like in this assessment.

In this study, scientists were able to measure the amount of tree cover on each square kilometre of the world's 22.2 million sq. km. of farmland.

The scientists - who included researchers from the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium - found that about 10 million sq. km of agricultural land have at least 10pc tree cover. That includes 3.2 million sq. km in South America, 1.9 million in sub-Saharan Africa and 1.3 million in Southeast Asia.

According to the report, "Trees are an integral part of the agricultural landscape in all regions, except north Africa and west Asia."

The data also show that people live with trees in farmed landscapes in virtually all of Central America and in about 80pc of such landscapes in Southeast Asia and South America. The proportion was lower but still large in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and North America, where trees are a significant feature on about 40pc of agricultural land.

The study found that the extent of trees in farmland in North America and Europe is especially impressive, given the large commercial agricultural sectors of these regions.

"This study offers convincing evidence that farms and forests are in no way mutually exclusive but that trees are, in fact, critical to agricultural production everywhere," said professor Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement.

Most notably, the researchers found that globally, there is no consistent trade-off "between people and trees".

There are areas with low population and little tree cover and areas with lots of people and lots of trees. The amount of tree cover - low or high - could not be explained solely by climate conditions, they said.

The authors also pointed to "documented cases" in which forests are initially cleared for agriculture development but then tree cover later returns, at least partially, as farmers seek to enhance production by planting useful trees that can generate income or provide other services, such as protecting watersheds.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
You cannot farm and have trees. A few yes. How much food comes out of a national park? Absolutely none, bugger all. I own a farm and if I can't kill a bit of regrowth I am getting out of the game. I bought the property to farm, and I could not care less about the mating habits of a possum. Of course the other thing to do is clear and if convicted, drag the governments arse through the courts on freehold tenure. In most cases you will win because what the government is doing is illegal with the constitution.
Posted by kevin dudd, 22/09/2009 2:03:47 PM
The Qld government and bureaucrats need to read and heed this article. Then they need to look at what landowners are doing and listen to them instead of allowing their green bureaucrats to set the rules.
Posted by Northerner, 23/09/2009 5:12:07 AM
If indeed, the climate change is due to the increases of CO2 beyond the capacity of vegetation to absorb it, then consider this: old growth forest trees are estimated to have absorbed an estimated thousands of tons CO2 over its 89-90 year life in the process of synthesis. When it is cut for whatever reason, for fence posts, the shed, the floor or whatever and is ultimately burnt, that CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. No one is suggesting that existing farms for food should become agroforests, that would be indefensible, but clear cutting should be replaced with borders and avenues of big leaf young commercial deciduous that consume the greatest amount of CO2 during growth, and replaced when harvested for the timber and in the process restoring habitat. It is a universal principle that the possession of land does not entitle the owner to do what he likes with it, and more often now than in the past, it is being tested on environmental issues other than mining. Old trees that have stopped growing have stopped absorbing CO2 and thereby new plantings of commercial timber is the correction.
Posted by Robert Stewart, 23/09/2009 6:45:26 AM
I read this report last month. It is concerned with agroforestry - not about natural forests. Essentially a bunch of agroforestry academics used satellite & land use data and some fancy mathematical models to determine the exent of agroforestry. Not surprisingly they found plenty of agricultural land given over to farmed trees devoted to agricultural pursuits such as horticulture and timber. They also found many parts of the world had areas of trees within typical cropping zones - no surprise there either. But the report was never about farmers being active or positive stewards of native vegetation. Read the report (it is freely available to download) - it's not very good in that it's not well written (which might explain the spectacular misreporting of it), some of the conclusions are very broad ("agroforestry is good" is hardly a useful statement) and Australasia as a region is largely ignored too. But I say again...it has nothing absolutely nothing to do with native or natural forests and a land manager's perceptions or management of them.
Posted by seano, 23/09/2009 8:36:22 AM
I planted my first trees as a 4 year old in 1959 and am the third generation of my family to have made serious economic sacrifices for the protection, promotion and expansion of native forest on farm land. Our efforts have all been based on the understanding that we would never be unfairly disadvantaged because of the benefits our trees delivered to the wider community. They were the natural profits of a just and equitable social contract. But governments have recently made it absolutely clear that our trust in that social contract was misplaced. Our trees have been converted into instruments for our own persecution, the tools for our dispossession, and the most serious threat to our kids inheritance. And with the heaviest of hearts one can only conclude that some societies are not worthy of a single tree.
Posted by Ian Mott, 23/09/2009 9:51:03 AM
All round the world, from the ancient lands of milk and honey where so many now are desert, to the Mallee of Victoria, where clearing for Returned Servicemen taking up the land in the Hatta, the result has been a decrease in rainfall. Read Bill Mollison's Permaculture book (p 141?) to see how a band of trees planted to intercept incoming lows can increase rainfall - successfully used in Europe. In West Australia research into how much water trees sucked up and expired showed astonishing figures. Research in the Amazon rain forest showed the same while people visiting rain forests comment on the ever-present fine mist. There are many suitable trees that produce fodder, firewood, stock shelter belts, windbreaks or a sale able commodity (don't ignore fine timbers), even diesel fuel. Keep records, so no over-zealous official can slap a restriction notice on your hard work and declare it out of bounds as natural vegetation - if that has happened in your area don't plant local species. Trees as above can increase rainfall, productivity and improve the value of your property.
Posted by Jaycie, 23/09/2009 1:39:42 PM
Satellite images are now readily available that have a resolution high enough to show individual trees. Hence the above study.

Most of the tree clearing hysteria was caused by the old Landsat images that couldn't see anything smaller than 50 m x 50 m. And as a result simply showed land areas as either thick forest or treeless land.

Any area with a tree canopy of less than 50pc showed up as treeless (interpreted by people with an agenda as been cleared).

Posted by Qlander, 23/09/2009 5:31:49 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Trees and farms are not mutually exclusive.
Trees and farms are not mutually exclusive.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: Can plant and animal breeders produce enough food to meet future global needs without the development of new genetically modified crops?

Yes
(53%)

No
(41.8%)

Undecided
(5.2%)

Total Votes: 668
Poll Date: 20 September, 2009

Most popular articles




The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...