A knock backwards for Agroforestry?

Latest Articles

A knock backwards for Agroforestry?

Downsizer Forum Index -> Land Management

Author

Message

Sally Too

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 2511
Location: N.Ireland

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 11 9:06 am Post subject: A knock backwards for Agroforestry?

No substitute for Virgin Forest

At first glance the headline suggests preserving forests...yay. But then the suggestion is that remaining land should be more intensively farmed....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14912813

Quote:

"Primary forests are truly unique and have exceptional value for biodiversity," said study co-leader Luke Gibson from the National University of Singapore.

"So if you can minimise the destruction of primary forests, then that might be the best strategy for tropical biodiversity.

"And if you have to use agricultural intensification of areas that are already used for agricultural production instead of focusing more on other forms of agriculture that attempt to maintain some levels of biodiversity, such as agrofrestry, that strategy might be more effective for maintaining the highest levels of biodiversity overall,"

Not sure this is all good? Comments?

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 11 9:16 am Post subject:
A look at the story on the BBC would only suggest to me more research is required. Firstly, I'm not sure if they have assumed agroforestry is less productive than intensive agriculture for example, I thought one of the ideals behind it was that it was actually more productive? Also, do they take into account the higher inputs required for intensive agriculture, etc, etc?

cassy

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 1047
Location: South West Scotland

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 11 10:05 am Post subject:

I think it depends on if you believe that virgin habitats will remain untouched. I could see an argument for this approach if we could achieve it and the people of that country could use the land available to feed themselves but worldwide we (as a species) have a pretty shocking track record on that score. I don't know enough about the situation in tropical countries but I fear that pressure on land will mean that former wild areas will always be exploited by large companies (national but particularly international).

As for "productivity" and "efficiency" it depend on which inputs and outputs (including pollution, greenhouse gasses etc) you measure.

Interesting articles from The Campaign for Real Farming esp. from Chris Smaje, comparing industrial and agroecological farming and their productivity per unit of greenhouse gas produced, here. Also Land Use Options For Sustainable Farming from his website here.

Sally Too

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 2511
Location: N.Ireland

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 11 10:12 am Post subject:

Good point cassy, the 2 land areas are disconnected in the sense that they are doubtlessly owned by different people. The cessation of managing agricultural land with diversity in mind will NOT in sure that virgin forests are untouched!

And I sure won't reduce my efforts to create habitats on my land, because I'm not convinced that by doing so I will be saving virgin forest!

Perhaps it is to be used as an excuse for NOT promoting biodiversity to farmers in the future?

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Land Management	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

View Latest Posts