Conservation and the Agricultural Frontier: Collapsing ...

This article was downloaded by: [Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden] On: 08 August 2013, At: 22:20 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable Forestry Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsf20

Conservation and the Agricultural Frontier: Collapsing Conceptual Boundaries a

b

Alder Keleman , Uromi Manage Goodale & Kerry Dooley

c

a

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Department of Anthropology, New Haven, Connecticut, USA b

Ecology, Behavior and Evolution Section, University of California–San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA c

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture–Forestry Services, Wright City, Oklahoma, USA Published online: 11 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Alder Keleman , Uromi Manage Goodale & Kerry Dooley (2010) Conservation and the Agricultural Frontier: Collapsing Conceptual Boundaries, Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29:6-8, 539-559, DOI: 10.1080/10549811.2010.485676 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2010.485676

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden] at 22:20 08 August 2013

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29:539–559, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1054-9811 print/1540-756X online DOI: 10.1080/10549811.2010.485676

INTRODUCTION


Conservation and the Agricultural Frontier: Collapsing Conceptual Boundaries ALDER KELEMAN1 , UROMI MANAGE GOODALE2 , and KERRY DOOLEY3 1

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Department of Anthropology, New Haven, Connecticut, USA 2 Ecology, Behavior and Evolution Section, University of California–San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA 3 Oklahoma Department of Agriculture–Forestry Services, Wright City, Oklahoma, USA

Agriculture and forest conservation are frequently placed in opposition to each other at the levels of both science and policy. However, in this article, we outline the ways in which these two fields of practice overlap and argue that—particularly in the context of the global economic crisis and predictions of climate change—it is urgent for conservationists and agricultural specialists to strengthen their collaborative work. We subsequently summarize the articles in this compilation, which demonstrate that human activities at the forest-agriculture interface are complex and multifaceted, and that sustainability is mediated by many factors—including land management practices, economic conditions, and the policy environment. Finally, we summarize a few take-home messages, suggesting new directions and principles for future research at the forest-agriculture interface. The conference discussed in this volume, “Conservation and the Agricultural Frontier: Integrating Forests and Agriculture in the Tropics,” would not have been possible without the generous support of the Yale Tropical Resources Institute, the Yale South Asian Studies Council, the Yale Gaddis-Smith Fund, the Yale Latin American and Iberian Studies Council, the Yale Graduate and Professional Student Senate, and the Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry. Special thanks are due to Dr. Amity Doolittle and Dr. Graeme P. Berlyn for their guidance and support, and to Peyton Smith, and Chisato Tomimura for their patience, dedication, and strong editing skills. Address correspondence to Alder Keleman, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 539

540

A. Keleman et al.

KEYWORDS forest-agriculture interface, conservation, agricultural sustainability, smallholder


INTRODUCTION What lessons can a tropical forester take from recent experiences with the varied, complex, and sometimes conflicting approaches to resource management at the forest-agriculture interface? How does human management of the forest-agriculture interface extend across space, and change over time? And how do extra-local policy and market variables (e.g., land-use planning trends, certification standards, or national economic policies) condition local management choices? These questions, and others like them, were the central preoccupations of “Conservation and the Agricultural Frontier: Integrating Forests and Agriculture in the Tropics,” a conference hosted by the Yale University Chapter of the International Society of Tropical Foresters (ISTF) in April 2006. This conference brought together academics and applied researchers to discuss the trends and practices affecting the interface between forested and cultivated land. The articles in this compilation (originally presented at the conference, with the exception of Rivera et al.), report detailed case-studies from Latin America (Weiner, this issue; Shriar, Arce-Nazario, Cohn & O’Rourke, Martínez de Anguita et al., and Rivera et al., all forthcoming), Africa (Kalame et al., Margles et al., Gockowski et al., Reyes et al, all this issue; and Toilier et al., Russell et al., both forthcoming) and Nepal (Pandit & Kumar, this issue). Taken together, these articles lay groundwork for re-thinking the relationship between agriculture and forest conservation. Improved approaches to both conservation and agriculture will be important for sustainability and human well-being in the long-term. Particularly in the context of climate change and the current economic crisis, it is becoming all the more important to consider the inter-relations between these two spheres at the levels of both science and international policy. This preface outlines the context framing the relationship between forests and agriculture at the time that the conference was conceived in 2006, and summarizes changes that have taken place in the intervening years. Following a summary of the major arguments, we suggest some key lessons that can be drawn from these articles. These lessons offer ways for both researchers and practitioners to move toward a more integrated approach to the forest-agriculture interface.

WHY CONSIDER CONSERVATION AND AGRICULTURE TOGETHER? The primacy of the questions outlined above emerged from discussions at the Yale ISTF chapter’s 2004 conference, “People and Parks: Beyond the


Introduction

541

Debate” (see Hawken & Granoff, 2010a), which reflected debates ongoing within the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and the conservation and development communities more broadly. The 2004 conference was premised on the recognition that whether people should be “in” or “out” of parks was essentially a moot point; despite theoretical or on-paper conjectures to the contrary, few of the world’s forested protected areas are free from human influence (Hawken & Granoff, 2010b), and those protected areas which are closely associated with human economic activities may be some of the most important zones for tropical forest conservation in the short- to medium-term (Campos & Nepstad, 2006). Recent experiences with protected area management point to the necessity of considering local residents’ livelihood strategies—including agricultural activity—as integral elements of conservation initiatives. Approaches integrating this perspective have included participatory land-use zoning (discussed in Blouch, 2010); co-administration and/or collaborative enforcement of the boundaries of protected areas with local residents’ groups (e.g., Mason, Baudoin, Kammerbauer, & Lehm, 2010; Shephard, Rummenhoeller, Ohl-Schacherer, & Yu, 2010); government support for sustainable extractive industries (discussed in Sills & Saha, 2010); legal recognition of indigenous territorial rights (Schwartzman, 2010; Dressler & McDermott, 2010; Santilli, 2010); and compensation for lost land-use alternatives (Wilkie, Redford, & McShane, 2010). Where the establishment of large-scale protected areas has not been possible due to widespread human inhabitance of ecologically important landscapes, conservation outcomes have been pursued via coordination of privately owned lands with protected areas (Morton et al., 2007; Soares Filho et al., 2006). Agroforestry has also emerged as a tool for creating ecologically diverse landscape mosaics integrating formally delineated protected areas and cultivated land (Russell et al., 2010). The spatial overlap between forested land and agriculture, when viewed in a global perspective, demonstrates why agriculture has emerged as such an important factor in protected area management. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment estimates that cultivated areas account for approximately 24% of the world’s land area (Cassman & Wood, 2005), while forested areas represent about 30% (Shivdenko, Barber, & Persson, 2005). However, these zones are not mutually exclusive: cultivated systems occupy around 9.86 million km2 of forested areas, hosting a population of around 747 million people (Cassman & Wood). Within these categories, approximately 46% of world’s forests are located in tropical biomes, although much of the tropical forest area is sparse forest in dryland areas, or degraded forest (Shivdenko et al., 2005). The World Bank (2008) estimates that agriculture is responsible for the conversion or degradation of some 13 million ha of tropical forest every year. However, a closer look at the forest-agriculture interface highlights that the relationship between these land uses is neither unidirectional nor uniform. People may manage forest resources for livelihood purposes even


542

A. Keleman et al.

without clearing forest cover; e.g., via agroforestry practices, gathering forest products, or engaging in other forms of extraction such as forestry and small-scale timber harvesting. Under some conditions, extractive industries in which poor forest dwellers engage may be unsustainable, but they are not inherently so. In fact, agricultural activities may actually add heterogeneity and biodiversity to the landscape, such as when farmers nurture particular kinds of trees or land-cover types (see Fairhead & Leach, 1996; Posey, 1985; Arce-Nazario, forthcoming). Further, practices that damage forests are not exclusive to smallholder farmers. Larger scale economic interests (e.g., palm plantations or largescale ranching) may have major detrimental impacts to forest cover (e.g., Curran et al., 2004; Nepstad et al., 1999). Contrary to the popular perception that the interests of smallholder farmers are intrinsically opposed to those of conservationists, such dynamics may create circumstances—like those surrounding recent support of a major smallholder farmers’ organization for the creation of new reserves in the state of Pará, Brazil (Campos & Nepstad, 2006)—in which agriculturalists and conservationists are naturally allied. These observations demonstrate that the relationship between forest and agriculture is more complicated than a simple case of spatial conflict. Just what is happening at the forest-agriculture interface? What activities do people engage in to support their livelihoods? Under what conditions do these activities work in favor of conservation goals, and when do they work against them, or have no effect? The articles in this volume approach these questions using on-the-ground observations from specific localities, asking what these experiences can tell us about forest management and policy.

CURRENT EVENTS AND NEW DEMANDS ON AGRICULTURE As this volume goes to press, the issues and questions around the agriculture-forest interface are gaining urgency. Under the current conditions of economic crisis—which followed on the heels of the 2007 “food crisis” (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2009c)— agriculture and agricultural development have been returned squarely to the forefront of international attention. This is evinced in the declaration of the 2009 UN-level “World Summit on Food Security” (WSFS), which decries current levels of world hunger as an “unacceptable blight on the lives, livelihoods and dignity of one-sixth of the world’s population” (p. 1) and calls for mustering the momentum built in addressing the recent food crisis to strengthen long-term food security in the face of global climate change. The demands that will be placed on agriculture in order to achieve this goal are significant. World population is expected to increase by one third by 2050, arriving at around 9.1 billion people. The FAO projects that this population increase will be accompanied by a 70% increase in agricultural


Introduction

543

production, growing at a rate outstripping the pace of population growth as urban and higher income consumers increase their demand for high-value products and meat. If FAO projections hold, some 90% of this increase in food production will be the result of intensification, but the remaining 10% will result from the conversion of new land to agriculture. These forecasts suggest that land under cultivation will expand by some 120 million ha, located primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. However, there is potential for conflict with forest conservation goals, since much of the arable land which could be converted to agriculture is currently under other land uses, including forest cover (FAO, 2009a, 2009b). In association with this projected trend, Hallam (2009) notes the recent reports of the purchase or long-term lease of land for agriculture in developing countries (primarily in Africa), by representatives of foreign nations (particularly the Gulf States, China, and the Republic of Korea). This pattern of land acquisition appears to respond to concerns about food security raised by the recent food price crisis in the investing countries, but they raise serious ethical and technical issues when the land-offering country has its own issues of chronic food insecurity or limited agricultural productivity. It remains to be seen to what extent such investments have the potential to spur the conversion of forested land to agriculture, either directly if the acquired lands themselves are forested, or indirectly if national farmers are displaced, and left needing to find new areas to cultivate. In the meantime, and particularly as a result of the recent food and economic crises, the number of hungry people in the world is increasing. Reductions in the number and proportion of undernourished people were evident from the early 1990s through 2004–2006. However, both of these trends have been reversed: the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) anticipates a 7.3–11.6% increase in the number of food-insecure people as a result of current economic circumstances (cited in FAO, 2009c, p. 23). The number of food-insecure people is projected to reach 1.02 billion by the end of 2009, increasing from an estimated 915 million in 2008 (FAO, 2009c, pp. 10–11). These trends pose new challenges not just for agriculture, but also for forest conservation. Frequently, the people most affected by food insecurity are those who live at the economic margins of society—and while many of the worst affected by current economic conditions may be the urban poor, the rural poor are also likely to be impacted (FAO, 2009c). Not the least of these impacts will be back-migration to rural areas, which are projected to receive an influx of people who had previously migrated to cities as the economic crisis reduces the availability of wage labor (FAO, 2009c). As articles in the companion volume point out (Toillier et al., Reyes et al., Shriar, all forthcoming), under economic stress, people living close to forests may resort to increased use of forest resources in order to maintain the viability of their livelihoods. Without significant government investment in


544

A. Keleman et al.

technology transfer, the techniques used for agricultural production in these areas are likely to continue to be extensive, to the detriment of forest cover, since poor farmers frequently lack the access to extension or other support that would allow them to adopt intensified agricultural technologies (Shriar, 2002; Barbier, 2000). Perhaps counterintuitively, it has also been found that receiving remittances may be positively associated with reforestation, when this cash inflow enables people to buy food rather than cultivate it (Hecht & Saatchi, 2007). This implies that the drop-off in remittances observed due to the current economic crisis (FAO, 2009c) may have indirect effects on forests as people resort to farming for food. As the articles resulting from the 2004 ISTF “People in Parks” conference point out, forest conservation was never an easy task to start with—so these problems add to the already-existing issues of unsustainable extraction, forest fragmentation, and challenges to the enforcement of boundaries and buffer zones with which conservation practitioners have long grappled.

INTEGRATING FOREST CONSERVATION AND AGRICULTURE AT THE POLICY LEVEL As the previous section demonstrates, forests and agricultural cultivation are interrelated, both in terms of their spatial overlap, and in terms of the economic and social processes that affect human management of these resources. This relationship, however, is of long-standing, suggesting that perhaps rather than asking, “how can we integrate the management of forests and agriculture?”, we might do well to ask “why has their management not been integrated in the recent past?” A full historical analysis is beyond the scope of this article, but as an entry point, it is suggestive to explore the differing fates of forests and agriculture in international policy since the 1990s. At the international level, discussions of forests and agriculture have taken place in largely separate spheres, with conservation being seen as a progressive step toward the future (e.g., future stewardship), whereas conventional agriculture has been seen as part of the past (e.g., an “early” phase of economic development). However, particularly in the context of the economic crisis and climate change, the international playing field is changing, making it all the more important for proponents of conservation, agricultural sustainability, and poverty reduction to integrate their approaches. For forest conservation, the 1980s and 1990s were a time of growing awareness and alarm at the rate at which the world’s forests were being cleared, often with the complicity of national and local governments (e.g., Hecht & Cockburn, 1990). International concern culminated in the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, which generated the


Introduction

545

Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). Although the existence of the CBD has not stalled the process of deforestation (with forested areas showing a net decrease of around 9.4% in 1990–2000; Shivdenko et al., 2005, p. 598), it has, both as a legal document and an international forum, become a rallying point for the conservation of forests and other ecosystems. Under this framework, conservation has largely been perceived as a “social good” to which civil society, NGOs, and other movements have rallied with the hope of promoting positive change. Agriculture, meanwhile, suffered a different fate in the 1980s and 1990s. While agriculture and rural development drew major international concern and investment through the 1970s, by the 1980s, emphasis in these areas had decreased. This is partially attributable to the success of earlier efforts in lowering food prices, removing agriculture from prominence on national political agendas (Falcon & Naylor, 2005). Investment in agricultural research and development decreased significantly (see Pardey & Beintema, 2001), and agriculture and rural development fell out of favor within the World Bank, USAID, and other institutions driving international development. Falcon and Naylor describe the characteristic attitude toward agriculture held by many at the World Bank during this period as a “pessimistic view,” which “. . . contends that most investments in rural infrastructure are wasted, that the private sector will provide the necessary agricultural R&D, and that efforts to provide special incentives to agriculture are inappropriate under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules” (p. 1119). In contrast to conservation, then, agriculture in this period was associated with underdevelopment and stagnation, and considered an area unfavorable for investment. The differing political fates of agriculture and forest conservation offer a partial explanation for the disjuncture between these two spheres in the 1990s and early 2000s: Conservationists had little incentive to align themselves politically with promoters of agriculture. Indeed, with the exception of movements for organic agriculture or improved agroecological methods (e.g., Altieri, 1995), an argument can be made that they were at material cross-purposes as well. One example suggestive of the extent of this opposition was the marketing of the PROCAMPO program within Mexico. This subsidy program, which was explicitly designed to cushion agricultural liberalization under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), was posed in part as an initiative that would reduce pressure on forests, helping farmers transition out of extensive maize-based farming into more intensive agricultural land uses (SARH, 1993, cited in Klepeis & Vance, 2003). In other words, a program designed to help eliminate the “social bads” of agriculture was explicitly justified in terms of contributing to the “social good” of forest conservation. However, if this sanctioned opposition between forests and agriculture was the standard in the international arena in the 1980s and 1990s, at the end of the first decade of the 2000s the playing field has changed, with


546

A. Keleman et al.

climate change looming as a concern for both agricultural production and forest conservation. Projected climatic changes will alter spatial approaches to conservation, decreasing the effectiveness of old forms of protectedarea planning premised on a static distribution of biodiversity across the landscape. These new circumstances call for planning at regional scales to accommodate climate-driven changes in species distribution (Hannah et al., 2002), implying that strategies to integrate agricultural lands into conservation matrices (e.g., Russell et al., 2010; Morton et al., 2007; Soares Filho et al., 2006) will become all the more important. Efforts to combat climate change have similarly led to a shift in the quantification of the value of forested land. While previous efforts focused on evaluating the observed or potential economic uses of particular species (e.g., Grimes et al., 1994; Mendelsohn & Balick, 1995; Balick & Mendelsohn, 1992; Peters, Gentry, & Mendelsohn, 1989), the value of forests is now frequently quantified in terms of the environmental services that they provide, and particularly in terms of their role in carbon sequestration. The latter is likely to increase in importance, given the recent advances in REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) programs in the global climate change negotiations. Climate change is also projected to have significant impacts on agricultural production. While production may increase in some regions, some of the poorest areas of the world are likely to experience negative impacts. For example, under current projections, agricultural output from African countries is expected to decrease by an average of 16 to 27% by 2080 (Cline, 2007). Analyses of projected local- and regional-level climate change in Africa suggest that significant areas will experience “novel” climatic conditions for 2050, many of which will need to be addressed by the international movement of germplasm from countries where analogous climate conditions currently exist (Burke, Lobell, & Guarino, 2009). These concerns dovetail with calls for renewed investment in agricultural research and development in the wake of the food and economic crises, with observers suggesting that the potential to increase agricultural production by 2050 will not be realized in the absence of advances in agricultural research (FAO, 2009b; GAT-GFAR, 2010). Climate change and global food security are broadly related through their linkages to the sustainable use of resources and economic development, but there are further specific causal pathways tracing links between agriculture and forestry. In general, it is expected that climate change will lead to more variability in agricultural output; and due to low capacity to adapt, the poor are more likely to be vulnerable to these fluctuations. The implication of this is that, if forest conservation is central to mitigating climate change, then it is also important to mitigating the impacts of variable agricultural production on the poor. If food insecurity leads the rural poor to expand cultivation onto forested land, then climate variability may create a feedback loop driving further deforestation.


Introduction

547

Meanwhile, the possibility that bioenergy will increasingly be used as an alternative fossil fuels also poses the potential for feedback loops. Anticipation of new demand for corn and other basic grains for biofuel production was one of the key factors causing the food-price spike in 2007 (Wright & Bobenrieth, 2009). The resulting political uproar, in addition to recent research suggesting that land management for first-generation biofuel production may have more negative than positive impacts on climate change (Fargione, Hill, Tilman, Polasky, & Hawthorne, 2008; Searchinger et al., 2008), has quelled the excitement around grain-based biofuels somewhat. Nonetheless, projections suggest that biofuels will play some role in future energy portfolios. If agriculture is asked not only to feed a growing population, but also to take the place of fossil fuels, then the competition between agriculture and forest conservation is likely to become even more acute, particularly if the use of agricultural lands for biofuel (or the use of otherwise-edible food products in first-generation biofuel technology) drives the expansion of agriculture into new territories. In summary, in the context of climate change, growing food insecurity, and unstable economic conditions, the links between forest conservation and agriculture are becoming ever stronger, at both the level of the material relationship between humans, food, and forests, and at the level of international policy making. These trends represent a strong incentive for both forest conservationists and agricultural specialists to start thinking technically and conceptually about the forest-agriculture interface. The articles in this compilation make valuable contributions to the evolving thinking on this topic, by giving examples of the ways in which the forest-agriculture interface may be affected by policy (Shriar, Russell et al., Toillier et al., Cohn & O’Rourke, all forthcoming), economics (Pandit & Kumar, Gockowski et al., this issue), and specific management practices (e.g., Wiener, Kalame et al., Reyes et al., all this issue; and Arce-Nazario, Rivera et al., Martínez de Anguita et al., all forthcoming)

CONSERVATION AND THE AGRICULTURAL FRONTIER: A SUMMARY OF CONTENTS This section focuses on the management of agricultural and forest resources in smallholder farming systems, and on how these farmers relate to other actors within the conservation and agricultural spheres. Although the role of large-scale corporations is not the explicit subject of these articles, many of them also shed light on the ways in which local and international agricultural interests (tea plantations, international corporations, or fair-trade certification schemes) influence smallholder farmers’ strategies and possibilities for managing the forest-agriculture interface sustainably. The articles in this compilation are framed by the conference keynote address delivered by


548

A. Keleman et al.

Dr. David Kaimowitz, then-Director General of CIFOR, who located the work of the conference in terms of a broader vision of the promises and challenges of multidisciplinary, impact-oriented research. Subsequently, the two issues are loosely organized into four sections. The current issue addresses strategies for the management of the forest-agriculture divide, and the economics of smallholder farmers’ forest-agriculture strategies. Papers in the second issue (forthcoming) discuss landscape-scale approaches to conservation, and indirect drivers of farmers’ use of the agricultural frontier. The first three articles respond to the questions: What knowledge do we have?; What knowledge is missing?; and How should we gather what remains to be known? Ecological knowledge about management of native species for timber and non-timber forest products is lacking in terra firme sites of the Amazon basin, suggests Wiener. His research on thinning regimes determined that the majority of species benefited from thinning, although growth rates and response to canopy openness varied among the native species tested. The tested trees also had high survivorship postestablishment, when sampled at yr 6 and yr 10. Wiener argues that providing local smallholders with education on some basic management strategies like stand thinning, as opposed to developing complicated management schemes, may be an effective way to encourage sustainable forest management. In doing so, Wiener reminds us that forests, like agriculture fields, may be cultivated as a renewable resource; and that sustainable harvesting can contribute to long-term economic and ecological goals. Kalame et al. make a similar case for agroforestry in their study of smallholder farmers’ forest management and utilization. The authors report not just the ways in which Sudanese farmers benefit from forests, but also their understanding of the natural and managed ecosystems around them, and their already-existing management practices. Building on information gathered in archival and literature reviews, coupled with a preliminary reconnaissance, the researchers gathered information through participatory learning and action methods, interviews, and surveys. The study found that smallholder farmers were able to identify rare and endangered species, and also noted that the farmers use many species for both products and services, such as soil conservation and crop protection. The findings highlight that these farmers have historically carried out forest management practices, including aiding regeneration processes through site preparation and parent tree selection. Post-establishment practices—such as thinning, pollarding, and weeding—were less frequently reported. These findings suggest that local knowledge in this region could serve as a platform on which to build agroforestry interventions. Wiener and Kalame et al. present examples of research with the potential to serve as a practical interface with foresters and agronomists. Meanwhile, the intended audience of the article by Margles et al. is the research community itself, exploring a methodology which scientists and


Introduction

549

practitioners may use to examine contentious political issues requiring participation and negotiation among many stakeholders. In an effort to address the need for effective diverse stakeholder participation in the buffer zone of the Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda, Margles et al. used the strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat (SWOT) methodology, combined with an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to engage members of five stakeholder groups in buffer-zone management planning. In keeping with their localstakeholder-centered approach, the researchers developed factors to be analyzed with this workshop in pre-interviews and refined the list of factors with the workshop participants before beginning the SWOT-AHP activity. Following the exercise, the authors concluded that the SWOT-AHP analysis was helpful for itemizing and prioritizing the specific strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for the site, and that the openness of the process also contributed to consensus and trust building. However, they caution that the success of such a process rests on having conducted preliminary, sitespecific interviews and research; being aware of the under-representation of some stakeholder groups; ensuring all voices are heard, rather than allowing certain personalities to dominate the discussion; and having highly qualified and well-trained facilitators at the workshop. The next section of the volume turns to detailed analyses of farmers’ livelihood strategies at the forest-agriculture interface, and the economic forces driving these strategies. Gockowski et al. examine the livelihood and biodiversity benefits provided by Cocoa Agroforests (CAFs) in Cameroon, using a combination of data obtained from ethnobotanical surveys and field inventories. Field inventories were taken of the plants utilized from 67 ha of CAFs in southern Cameroon among 46 households. Two hundred eighty-six plant species were utilized as foods, medicinal plants, timber, and service products. For these households, non-cocoa revenues accounted for one quarter of total CAF revenues, and per-capita revenues from all CAF products brought 29% of these households above the poverty line. While monetary returns increased with increasing agricultural intensification and market access, the plant diversity of CAFs degraded slightly as intensification proceeded. In terms of their impact on biodiversity, CAFs represent a favorable option compared to other possible agricultural land uses in southern Cameroon, and hence the authors conclude that taking measures to support CAFs’ contribution to farmers’ livelihoods could both reduce rural poverty and have favorable conservation impacts. Pandit and Kumar also argue for investment and policy change to facilitate livelihood-improving agroforestry practices. In the hills of eastern Nepal, the authors point out that farmers have a high dependence on non-timber forest products (NTFPs), but there is no plan for sustainable extraction, placing high-value species in a precarious position. Using net present value and cost-benefit analysis ratio, Pandit and Kumar analyzed the profitability of growing NTFPs in terraced, cultivated landscapes, determining that


550

A. Keleman et al.

five of the important NTFPs were more profitable than major cultivated crops. Despite this profitability, however, the authors observed that farmers were not interested in cultivating these NTFPs. Examining the constraints leading to this resistance, the authors identified unfavorable legal and political circumstances, in which laws are unevenly enforced and farmers are criminalized for the possession and sale of many forest products, whether sustainably harvested or not. They suggest that, without changing these factors, it will be impossible to clear the way for the implementation of sustainable NTFP agroforestry practices. Reyes et al. similarly point out that “disconnects” between conservation policy and agricultural policy can limit the effectiveness of conservation measures. In eastern Tanzania, Reyes et al. compared farmers’ income and land-use practices in two regions with recently established protected areas. The establishment of these protected areas was intended in part to curtail farmers’ use of forested areas for cultivating cardamom, an important cash crop. This spice is generally grown under the canopy of forests after clearing the understory, and it typically initiates a process of land degradation which makes it difficult to transition the land back to forest cover. The authors surveyed farmers in the region to explore their cultivation techniques and explore the possibility of transitioning cardamom production to home gardens. They found that, despite the existence of techniques for cultivating cardamom more sustainably and more profitably in home gardens, farmers in the region were not transitioning to this practice—a circumstance attributable to risk aversion, lack of information and extension efforts to promote the practice, and low social capital. The authors propose that addressing these agricultural concerns is important to support the implementation of conservation policy. The third section (forthcoming in Volume 30) explores the possibilities for analyzing the relationship between conservation and the agricultural frontier from a landscape perspective. Based on observations from the Peruvian Amazon, Arce-Nazario argues against the standard belief that agriculture leads to homogeneous land cover and reduction of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Arce-Nazario used participatory mapping, analysis of land-cover photos, and qualitative research methods to make a detailed map of a small-scale agricultural landholding on the Amazonian floodplain, which had been occupied by a single farming family for several decades. The area mapped included active agricultural areas with both perennial and pioneer crops; fallows of various ages including valuable timber and fruit trees and trees of considerable size; old-growth forests which had never been cleared, but were actively managed; and swamp and lake areas which further contributed to local diversity. This detailed analysis points out the importance of avoiding simplified classification schemes by examining smallscales of land management, so as not to miss smallholders’ fine-grained but important contributions to the landscape mosaic.


Introduction

551

Toillier et al. apply a similar principle to their analysis of historical land-management strategies at the farm-forest interface in Madagascar. The researchers used in-depth interaction with farmers—including surveys, semi-structured interviews, and participatory mapping—to gather information on the history of families’ land-use strategies over time. In particular, they analyzed these strategies in the context of a new decentralized forestmanagement policy, which had been recently implemented in the region. The authors found that the pre-existing conditions in the household— including the stage of family development, levels of available labor power, and the type of land that the household had previously had access to—were major determinants of the household’s response to the new forest management laws. While some households responded in ways that were conducive to forest conservation, other households cleared more land (in order to be able to prove tenure and pass these holdings on to future generations). Still others resorted to illegal activities, in the absence of other livelihood options. These observations raise concerns not only about the effectiveness of the new policies for forest conservation, but also about their impacts on already-vulnerable households. Further, the authors’ fine-grained analytical approach brings to light information that might be missed in a larger but less personalized study. Landscape-level strategies also figure prominently in two related articles, Rivera et al. and Martínez de Anguita et al., which report on the use of GIS-based methods for designing conservation strategies in the Calan Watershed of Honduras. Rivera et al. discuss the relationship between hillside subsistence farming and soil degradation in Honduras. They point out that deforestation resulting from land clearing for subsistence farming is a vicious circle; without forest cover, hillsides are prone to erosion, lowering their fertility over time and in turn making it necessary for farmers to clear new, fertile plots of land. However, the implementation of soil conservation practices is limited, in part because it is difficult for farmers to perceive their direct economic benefits. To provide information to support the promotion of more sustainable practices (specifically, the use of live barriers), the authors evaluated soil losses during the rainy season of 2003 on hillside farms, comparing a variety of agricultural land uses. Runoff, sedimentation, and nitrogen loss from these plots were measured; the cost of replacing nitrogen with commercial fertilizer was estimated. Results suggested that, of all the land uses, agriculture without live barriers produces the highest erosion rate and the most costly loss of nutrients. The results were projected to the whole basin using GIS software, which was subsequently used to identify critical erosion-risk areas for which interventions might be proposed. Martínez de Anguita et al. use similar techniques to propose a design for a payments-for-environmental-services (PES) system in the Calan Basin watershed. They analyze the possibility of implementing a PES system for the provision of clean water, discussing potential interventions that could be


552

A. Keleman et al.

made in the forest-agriculture landscape mosaic through which runoff flows to the region’s urban areas. In estimating the value of the clean-water service provided, they consider the water-quality impacts of a variety of land uses, and the opportunity costs of alternative land uses. GIS analysis was used to identify some 8.4% of the lands in the basin where changes in land use could have the greatest water-quality impact. Subsequently, they calculated the costs of setting up a PES system, including the costs of implementing sustainable local development measures (e.g., latrinization of household sewage systems, as well as some land-use conversion for high-impact land uses). They compared this with a survey of water consumers’ willingness to pay for clean water with either cash or labor input. They find that this willingness to pay is high enough to cover a portion of the cost of implementing the program, although additional funds from outside donors would likely be needed. Although both of the strategies put forth for the Calan Basin in Honduras will still need to struggle with the on-the-ground challenges of implementation, as both Rivera et al. and Martínez et al. point out, they attest to the fact that GIS systems are a powerful tool for designing a targeted approach to implementing conservation measures. A counterpoint to these landscape-scale perspectives is offered by the first chapter of the final section, which addresses the indirect market and policy drivers of activities at the forest-agriculture interface. Russell et al. address the macro-level drivers of forest-agriculture change, offering a caveat to the excitement about the use of landscape-based approaches that the preceding articles might inspire. Reporting on research in humid Central Africa, the authors argue for a re-vamping of conservation on the agricultural frontier. They point out that much of the theory currently applied to rural development is focused on only one sector of a tightly woven system (e.g., agriculture vs. forestry), arguing that this approach neglects the deeper insights that could be drawn from an analysis of whole-system dynamics. Historically, this approach has led to complicated mistakes, in which practitioners and scientists pressed misguided recommendations on farmers without grasping the full context in which farmers’ decisions were being made. The authors propose that conservation should move away from its current focus on protected areas, and should instead prioritize interactions with agriculture and rural development techniques based on local potential, rather than overarching land-use-planning goals. Further, these processes must be inclusive and transparent; the power of new GIS-based tools should not become an excuse for excluding non-experts from the decision-making process. The impacts of long-term policy changes are also at the heart of Shriar’s study, which examines the impacts of the Guatemalan government’s move toward market integration. Specifically, he examines the paving of roads in the Petén region, an initiative which linked this area more closely to national and international markets. Drawing from a range of primary and secondary data, with emphasis on panel survey data from one agriculturally


Introduction

553

important area of Petén gathered before and after the roads were paved, Shriar’s findings suggest that it is now difficult for local farmers to compete with the products supplied by larger, more efficient producers, and to survive in the face of downward pressures on farm gate prices. Households in the study have become poorer; farming systems have become less diverse; and concentration of landownership and landlessness have increased. These conditions present challenges for sustainable land management, and present new incentives for farmers to undertake new migration into the Maya Biosphere Reserve. In other words, government policy for market integration has made the prospect of achieving a sustainable forest-agriculture interface all the more improbable. While Shriar examines the impacts of government policies for market opening, Cohn and O’Rourke spotlight potential pitfalls of non-governmental market management through agriculture certification schemes. These tools have received increasing attention as potential levers for achieving both conservation and socioeconomic goals, but as Cohn and O’Rourke point out, there are challenges to their development, implementation, and evaluation. How effective agricultural certification is at achieving conservation may depend on stated goals of certification, as well as the actors charged with certifying. The self-governance of certification schemes poses a further challenge, in that certifying parties may blur the lines between first-, second-, and third-party participation. The authors highlight that the realities of certification schemes do not necessarily conform to idealized arrangements of goals, practices, and evaluations. Rather, they are based on a measure or practice that is projected to assist with conservation in theory, but the on-the-ground relationship between this practice and conservation outcomes is frequently left unevaluated. Cohn and O’Rourke caution that, in the absence of strong government policy and competing in markets in which consumers may place higher value on quality, safety, and other considerations, agricertification schemes that fail to make concrete links between the practice they support and a significant conservation outcome put their own credibility at risk, and thereby also risk failing to achieve the objectives they are designed to support.

SYNTHESIS: TAKE-HOME MESSAGES The articles in this compilation examine the conservation-agriculture interface from multiple perspectives using methods from forestry, anthropology, economics, and geography. Although the insights of these studies vary, we suggest a few overarching conclusions which can be drawn. These are as follows: ●

The relationship between agriculture and forestry is not mutually exclusive or unidirectional. While agriculture in some cases is a driver

554


●

●

●

●

A. Keleman et al.

of deforestation (see Shriar forthcoming; Reyes, this issue), in other cases it can help contribute to reforestation, or to the integration of forests and agriculture into a diverse, human-managed landscape (see Arce-Nazario, forthcoming, and Gockowski et al., Weiner, both this issue). More importantly, there is a relationship between agriculture and forest conservation, but this is frequently underacknowledged in academic and policy debates. In two prominent cases in this volume (Pandit & Kumar, Reyes et al.), the disconnect between agricultural and forest policy emerged as a key missing link which, if better developed, might allow farmers to re-structure their agricultural practices to contribute to sustainable forest management. As Kaimowitz points out, this disconnect may be a reflection of the academic world, in which people are drawn to different disciplines by different personal interests, life experiences, and personality traits. However, potential synergies between agriculture and forest conservation will be difficult to achieve without effective dialogue between the policy makers for these key fields. Policy matters—and not just forest policy. Agricultural policy can have an impact on sustainable forestry, and forestry matters to agricultural policy (see Reyes et al., and Pandit & Kumar, this issue, and Toiller et al., Russell et al., forthcoming). This is the case even when “policy” is being made by third parties, such as NGOs or certifying bodies (see Cohn & O’Rourke, forthcoming), or where a broad policy shift, such as the adoption of “neoliberal” economic policies has trickle-down impacts on rural people’s livelihood options (e.g., Shriar, forthcoming). History also matters. No forest-dwelling household has arisen from a vacuum. Households migrating to forested areas may bring practices and awareness developed in other regional settings, and similarly, households that have lived on the conservation-agriculture frontier for significant periods of time may have had their practices and awareness shaped by many successive—and sometimes contradictory—policy initiatives for forest management (see Toillier et al., Russell et al., both forthcoming). In order to understand (and predict) how households will respond to changes in land-use laws and their enforcement, it is imperative to understand the historical background that has shaped their land uses. GIS is a powerful tool for describing the “big picture” of the forestagriculture interface. GIS allows for the layering of socioeconomic and biophysical data across images of agriculture and forested landscapes (see Arce-Nazario, Martínez de Anguita et al., Toillier et al., Rivera et al., and Russell et al., all forthcoming). This technique can show the borders of conservation areas not just as sharply delineated spaces on a map, but rather as overlapping and permeable boundaries, the extent of which may vary when viewed according to season, to a specific extractive or agricultural activity, or to change over historical time. This is also a powerful tool for working across scales, being amenable to data gathered at

Introduction


●

●

555

the community level with participatory methods, while also providing the power to generate larger models. Further, GIS representations are convincing and relevant to international donor agencies, fitting easily into the current trend toward targeted interventions, as opposed to hit-and-miss, opportunistic conservation planning. . . . but beware of a GIS technocracy. While the examples in these issues which take a landscape approach speak to the power of GIS for representing complex subject matter, they also serve as a reminder that overgeneralization may cause more problems than it solves, and that a GIS model is only as good as the data that have been built into it. Furthermore, the power of the tool poses the danger that it will be used to support top-down approaches (e.g., colonial-style land-use planning; see Russell et al., forthcoming), which may be counterproductive for the long-run sustainable management of the forest-agriculture interface. Finally, for applied research to be truly interdisciplinary, researchers must become more flexible. It is not enough for researchers interested in conservation and agriculture to work only at one scale, nor is it sufficient to be aware only of a single discipline. The articles in these issues demonstrate the benefits of fluency in more than one set of research methods, and in more than a single disciplinary jargon.

In summary, the articles presented in these issues argue that agriculture matters for forest conservation—and what matters is not just whether land is under cultivation or not, but what kind of agriculture is being practiced, who is undertaking it, at what scale, and with which technology. They offer insights into the ways in which people living in or near forested areas make use of the resources at their disposal to feed their families and make a living, and what forest-friendly (or forest-damaging) options might be available to improve their livelihoods. Taken together, these case studies represent important steps toward understanding the complex dynamics affecting the forest-agriculture interface—including site conditions, land-use history, composition of species extracted or cultivated, and specific management techniques. They also shed light on the importance of social influences—including political and economic trends, livelihood and food security concerns, and cultural values. These observations—and more casestudies like them—will be important to guiding sustainable management of the forest-agriculture interface in the face of the looming challenges of long-term food security and climate change.

REFERENCES Altieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.


556

A. Keleman et al.

Arce-Nazario, J. A. (forthcoming). Managing ecosystem heterogeneity: A case study of an Amazonian floodplain landholding. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Balick, M., & Mendelsohn, R. (1992). The economic value of traditional medicine from tropical rain forests. Conservation Biology, 6(1), 128–130. Barbier, E. B. (2000). Links between economic liberalization and rural resource degradation in the developing regions. Agricultural Economics, 23, 299–310. Blouch, R. (2010). Zoning for people within Indonesia’s Kerinci Seblat National Park. Journal Of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 432–450. Burke, M. B., Lobell, D. B., & Guarino, L. (2009). Shifts in African crop climates by 2050, and the implications for crop improvement and genetic resources conservation. Global Environmental Change, 19, 317–325. Campos, M., & Nepstad, D. (2006). Smallholders, the Amazon’s new conservationists. Conservation Biology, 20(5), 1553–1556. Cassman, K. G., & Wood, S. (2005). Cultivated systems. In Millenium ecosystem assessment. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http:// www.millenniumassessment. org/documents/document.295.aspx.pdf Cohn, A., & O’Rourke, D. (forthcoming). Agricultural certification as a conservation tool in Latin America. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Cline, W. R. (2007). Global warming and agriculture: Impact estimates by country. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development & Peterson Institute for International Economics. Curran, L. M., Trigg, S., McDonald, A., Astiani, D., Hardiono, Y. M., Siregar, P., et al. (2004). Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science, 303, 1000–1003. Dressler, W. H., & McDermott, M. H. (2010). Indigenous peoples and migrants: Social categories, rights, and policies for protected areas in the Philippine uplands. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 328–361. Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African landscape: Society and ecology in a forest-savanna mosaic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Falcon, W. P., & Naylor, R. L. (2005). Rethinking food security for the 21st century. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(5), 1113–1127. Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319(5867), 1235–1238. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2009a). Global agriculture towards 2050. Issue brief, High-Level Expert Forum, Rome, Italy, October 12–13, 2009. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_ Global_Agriculture.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2009b). How to feed the world in 2050. Summary of High-Level Expert Forum, Rome, Italy, October 12–13, 2009. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http:// www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_ World_in_2050.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2009c). The state of food insecurity in the world: Economic Crises—impacts and lessons learned. Rome: Author.


Introduction

557

Global Authors’ Team of Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GAT-GFAR). (2010). Executive summary for GAT report. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/273761/Executive%20Summary%20and %20Road%20Map%20-%20GAT%20REPORT%20FINAL.pdf Grimes, A., Loomis, S., Jahnige, P., Burnham, M., Onthank, K., Alarcon, R., et al. (1994). Valuing the rain forest: The economic value of nontimber forest products in Ecuador. Ambio, 23(7), 405–410. Hallam, D. (2009, June). International investments in agricultural production. Paper presented at Expert Meeting on “How to Feed the World in 2050,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak976e/ak976e00.pdf Hannah, L., Midgley, G. F. & Millar, D. (2002). Climate change integrated conservation strategies. Global Ecology and Biogeograpgy, 11, 485–495. Hawken, I. F., & Granoff, I. M. E. (Eds.). (2010a). People in parks—Beyond the debate: Achieving conservation in human-inhabited protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 109. Hawken, I. F., & Granoff, I. M. E. (2010b). Introduction: People in parks—Beyond the debate. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 110–121. Hecht, S., & Cockburn, A. (1990). Fate of the forest: Developers, destroyers, and defenders of the Amazon. New York: Harper Collins. Hecht, S, & Saatchi, S. S. (2007). Globalization and forest resurgence: Changes in forest cover in El Salvador. Bioscience, 57(8), 663–672. Klepeis, P., & Vance, C. (2003). Neoliberal policy and deforestation in Southeastern Mexico: An Assessment of the PROCAMPO program. Economic Geography, 79(3), 221–240. Martínez de Anguita, P., Rivera, S., Beneitez, J.M., Cruz, F. & Espinal, F.M. (forthcoming). A GIS cost-benefit analysis based methodology to establish payment for environmental services system in water basins. Application to the Calan river in Honduras. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Mason, D., Baudoin, M., Kammerbauer, H., & Lehm, Z. (2010). Comanagement of National Protected Areas: Lessons learned from Bolivia. Journal of Suststainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 403–431. Mendelsohn, R., & Balick, M. (1995). The value of undiscovered pharmaceuticals in tropical forests. Economic Botany, 49(2), 223–228. Morton, D. C., Shimabukuro, Y. E., Rudorff, B. F. T., Lima, A., Freitas, R. M., & DeFries, R. S. (2007). Conservation challenge at the agricultural frontier: Deforestation, fire, and land use dynamics in Matto Grosso. Ambiente e Agua An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Science, 2(001), 5–20. Nepstad, D., Veríssimo, A., Alencar, A., Nobre, C., Lefebvre, P., Schlesinger, P., et al. (1999). Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature, 398, 505–508. Pardey, P., & Beintema, N. (2001). Slow magic: Agricultural R&D a century after Mendel. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Peters, C., Gentry, A., & Mendelsohn, R. (1989). Valuation of an Amazonian rain forest. Nature, 339(6227), 655–656. Posey, D. A. (1985). Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: The case of the Kaypaó Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems, 3, 139–158.


558

A. Keleman et al.

Rivera, S., Ferreira, O. I., Martínez de Anguita, P., & Espinal, F. M. (forthcoming). Soil and economic loss evaluation on small hillside farms in the central mountains of Honduras. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Russell, D, Asarae, R. A., Brosius, J. P., Witter, R. C., Welch-Devine, M. L., Spainhower, K., et al. (2010). People, trees, and parks: Is agroforestry in or out? Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 451–476. Russell, D., Mbile, P., & Tchamou, N. (forthcoming). Farm and forest in Central Africa: Toward an integrated rural development strategy. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Santilli, J. (2010). Human-Inhabited Protected Areas (HIPAs) and the law: Integration of local communities and protected areas in Brazilian law. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 390–402. SARH (Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidraulicos). (1993). PROCAMPO: Vamos al grano para progresar. Mexico City, DF: Author. Schwartzman, S. (2010). Nature and culture in central Brazil: Panará natural resource concepts and tropical forest conservation. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 302–327. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., et al. (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science, 319(5867), 1238–1240. Shephard, G. H., Rummenhoeller, K., Ohl-Schacherer, J., & Yu, D. W. (2010). Trouble in paradise: Indigenous populations, anthropological policies, and biodiversity conservation in Manu National Park, Peru. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 252–301. Shivdenko, A., Barber, C. V., & Persson, R. (2005). Forest and woodland systems. In Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.290.aspx.pdf Shriar, A. (2002). Food security and land use deforestation in northern Guatemala. Food Policy, 27, 395–414. Shriar, A. J. (forthcoming). Economic integration, rural hardship, and conservation on Guatemala’s agricultural frontier. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Sills, E., & Saha, S. (2010). Subsidies for rubber: Conserving rainforests while sustaining livelihoods in the Amazon? Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 152–173. Soares Filho, B. S., Nepstad, D. C., Curran, L. M., Coutinho Cerqueira, G., Garcia, R. A., Azevedo Ramos, C., et al. (2006). Modelling conservation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nature, 440, 520–523. Toillier, A., Serpantié, G., Hervé, D., & Lardon, S. (forthcoming). Livelihood strategies and land use changes in response to conservation: An insight into pitfalls of community-based forest management in Madagascar. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Wilkie, D., Redford, K. H., & McShane, T. O. (2010). Taking of rights for natural resource conservation: A discussion about compensation. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(2–4), 135–151. World Bank. (2008). World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/


Introduction

559

EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2008/0„menuPK:2795178~page PK:64167702~piPK:64167676~theSitePK:2795143,00.html World Summit on Food Security (WSFS). (2009). Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security. World Summit on Food Security, Rome, Italy, November 16–18, 2009. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/ docrep/fao/Meeting/018/k6050e.pdf Wright, B. D., & Bobenrieth, E. (2009). The food price crisis of 2007/2008: Evidence and implications. FAO food outlook: Global market analysis. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/ak341e/ak341e13.htm Yale Chapter of the International Society of Tropical Foresters (ISTF). (2003). People in parks: Beyond the debate. Call for papers for 2004 ISTF conference. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.yale.edu/istf/FINAL_ ISTF_2004_PeopleinParks_callforPapers.pdf