8/10/2019 Response Paper Week

1/1

In the discussions about climate change, smallholder farmers are often viewed as the victims,

the would-be climate refugees who will have no choice but adapt to the harsher environment in

the future. Seldom are smallholder farmers viewed as important subjects to take part in climate

change mitigation measures. Until today, little incentives have been developed to get

smallholder farmers involve in mitigation measures compared to large corporations and

government entities that become dominant actors in current mitigation schemes such as clean

energy development, REDD+, and carbon-offset trading.

Contrary to this perception, Wollenberg et al. (2012) argue that appropriate incentives and

institutions need to be developed to gain wider participation of smallholder farmers in climate

change mitigation measures. Agricultural emission reduction has a high potential in climate

change mitigation measures, as its proportion in carbon emission is comparable to emission

from energy sector and much higher than emission from transportation sector. However, this

potential can only be realized through wider involvement of smallholder farmers who dominate

agricultural landscape in the low-and-middle income countries.

To achieve this goal, Wollenberg et al. (2012) advocates three guiding principles for successful

mitigation practices in agricultural sector: that mitigation options have to generate economicbenefits; that they need to reconcile climate mitigation objectives with welfare improvement

objectives, with emphasis on the latter objectives; and that they have to encourage active

participation. Agroforestry initiatives can easily conform to these guiding principles, as

smallholder farmers have engaged in agroforestry practices for millennia to gain a stream of

multiple benefits: food, fodder, ritual and medicinal plants, even without knowing the financial

incentives they can get from the benefit streams of ecosystem services.

In mitigation of climate change, agroforestry practices have clear advantage over other

agricultural management practices in terms of ecological functions and ecosystem service. One

important aspect of ecosystem service is the important role of agroforestry systems in carbon

sequestration. Nair et al. (2010) give evidence that agroforestry practices are important carbon

sinks through which many processes of aboveground and belowground carbon sequestrationstake place, based on extensive studies under various agroforestry systems. This carbon

sequestration benefit has already had financial and economic values, as payment mechanisms

already exist through various Agroforestry CDM projects and some carbon trading schemes.

The question is why this high potential has not been realized after many years of development?

Nair et al. (2010) hint on too much focus to the economic potential of carbon trading at the

expense of on-farm research. I could not agree more. Agroforestry CDM projects are often not

financially competitive compare to other quick-fix carbon offsetting projects, such as CFC-

reduction, hydroelectric, wind power, or solar power generation projects. Nor do REDD+ and

other financial incentive schemes that are more beneficial to the elites who have more access to

information and resources than smallholder farmers. In my countrys experience, majority of

smallholder farmers still adhere to traditional agroforestry systems which are prone to land-usechange due to population pressure. As more and more agroforestry lands become fragmented,

land productivity becomes an issue as food security has to compromise with tree development.

Perhaps, through the focus on the on-farm research we can find robust agroforestry systems

that can be easily adopted by smallholder farmers to improve productivity of their land without

compromising their food security, just as the technology improvement in agricultural

productivity help spur the adoption of green revolution technology.