In a recently published article, ‘Agroforestry as Land-based Carbon Dioxide Removal in Central Europe: Tensions between Institutions, Interests, and Ideas Hindering Scaling Up’, Fernando-Eseteban Montero-de-Oliveira, Sabine Reinecke, Sebastian Mayr and Wilhelmus de Jong from the University of Freiburg have identified the barriers that pose obstacles against the utilization of agroforestry system (AFS) as a CDR method as well as the factors that incentivize such utilization in the trinational Metropolitan Upper Rhine Region by using the conceptual lens of ‘institutions, interests and ideas’.
Key takeaways:
- A land-based CDR method that is easier to implement and cheaper than other options, agroforestry systems (AFS) incorporate numerous land utilization techniques that merge wood elements or forests with practices pertaining to agriculture and/or livestock.
- There is a consensus among individuals whose views have been obtained that not only include farmers but also other actors such as researchers, consultants and public administrators regarding the positive contribution of AFS to climate mitigation. That said, the latter groups attach more importance to other benefits flowing from AFS such as biodiversity as well as reduction with the incidences of heatwaves and extreme rainfall, with carbon sequestration being mentioned only on a few occasions.
- Farmers find the growing demands of society regarding the use of AFS as part of agricultural practices ‘intrusive and disrespectful’ as AFS hinders their ability to make autonomous decisions to produce good-quality and affordable products while generating profits. Farmers are of the view that they should only be expected to have recourse to AFS if they receive payment for the positive impacts they generate. In addition, they have doubts regarding the future legal feasibility of AFS.
- A number of administrations operating in the realms of ‘nature protection, spatial planning and agriculture’ oversee AFS operations, meaning that farmers that engage in AFS need to have recourse to a number of bodies for AFS-related permission, monitoring and payment. In cases where such bodies have divergent interests, farmers are faced with legal uncertainty, which is exacerbated by the additional rules that may be imposed by the administrations that operate at the regional level. Administrations have failed to benefit from the opportunities brought by digitalization to address their inability to take coordinated action.
- Actors that do not engage in agricultural practices support biodiversity inducing AFS methods that make use of certain types of trees. That said, these methods are not profitable options for farmers, a point that NGOs frequently fail to consider. The calls made by such NGOs to incentivize farmers to use biodiversity inducing AFS methods restrict their ability to make independent decisions by using their expertise to maximize their profits through producing wood products that can be used as a fuel and construction material.
- Hedges are beneficial for farmers as they can be used to manage erosion, cut winds and grow fruits. In addition, they contribute to biodiversity. However, given their high costs, some farmers have indicated that they would only use hedges if they receive financial support.
- AFS can only be scaled if legal obstacles are removed and compensation is provided to make up for the damages that are incurred during the initial phases and subsequent stages where actors report reduced income.
- Political support should be provided to increase the quality of AFS-related education and innovation.
- The value that trees have due to contributing to climate mitigation do not translate into financial incentives for farmers. Schemes such as ETS and carbon markets can be used to compensate farmers for the environmental benefits they generate through AFS.
- Many institutions present AFS as an old method that farmers should be obliged to employ. Novel AFS practices, however, provide guidance regarding the manner in which AFS can be implemented in harmony with modern agricultural practices.
- Addressing the differences between ‘institutions, interests and ideas’ is essential for the increased use of AFS and harnessing its potential as a CDR method to the greatest extent possible.
To read the article, visit https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2025.2478286#d1e945