Elsevier

Journal of Rural Studies

Volume 82, February 2021, Pages 210-221
Journal of Rural Studies

Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Highlights

  • Existing scholarly framings of “agroforestry” are identified and analyzed.

  • Examples from Brazil are used to illustrate distinct “agroforestry” transitions.

  • Some transitions called agroforestry entail deforestation or agribusiness expansion.

  • Agroecological agroforestry increases productivity in socioecologically just ways.

  • Agroecoforestry transitions demand a strong social carrier.

Abstract

This article canvasses the current definitions and framings of “agroforestry” in different academic literature and policies. Three key framings of “agroforestry” are identified in the scholarship and explored for their differences. The findings suggest that the distinct schools of research on “agroforestry” focus on distinct points of departure, and these baseline situations from which transitions to what is called “agroforestry” occur vary in distinct ways from monoculture plantations to primary forests. Political-economic analysis is used to scrutinize three key “agroforestry” transition categories: agroecological, agribusiness, and forest degradation, which the article identifies as agroecoforestry (the good), agrobizforestry (the bad), and agrodeforestry (the ugly) transitions, respectively. Examples of each type are provided based on field research in Brazil, and the results are put into a global perspective. The categories are helpful in identifying the “agroforestry” transitions that are currently marketed as good solutions but might also have negative impacts and in highlighting the agroecological agroforestry transitions that would help simultaneously increase global food production, adapt to and mitigate the climate crisis, and achieve equity and social justice.

Keywords

Agroforestry
Agroecology
Sustainable development
Deforestation
Rural transitions
Political economy

Cited by (0)