Examining the potential of agroforestry through
SWOT analysis with Raworth’s Doughnut Economics
integrated: The impact on food security in Southern Africa
Figure 1. Agroforestry in Zimbabwe (World Agroforestry, 2018).
Rosanna Kistemaker
10729321
Eva van der Pol
11196548
Marieke Stuijt
11347880
Jessie Teeuwen
11320885
Guidance of: Jaap Rothuizen and Alison Gilbert
Date: 28/05/2019
Course: Interdisciplinary project
Amount of words: 8216
Abstract
This paper aims to examine the potential of agroforestry to enhance food security in
Southern Africa. As food insecurity has been an ongoing problem within this region,
innovative agricultural methods such as agroforestry could potentially make a
difference. Therefore, this paper researches the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats of the implementation of agroforestry in Southern Africa. For this,
background information has been collected with the use of literature and interviews
with two experts, Jessica Duncan and Frans Bongers, concerning agroforestry, food
security and policies. After this, the assembled results have been assimilated within a
SWOT analysis for which the Doughnut Economics of Raworth has been used as a frame
of reference. Following this analysis, the conclusion is that agroforestry has the potential
to be effectively used, as it improves both social and environmental conditions in the
region of Southern Africa. However, shortcomings decrease the implementation of
agroforestry. To increase the implementation of agroforestry, policies need to be
reformed, agroforestry need to be more promoted and specific advice has to be available
for farmers.
Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Food security
2.2Case description: Food security in Southern Africa
2.3Raworth’s Doughnut Economics
2.4Agroforestry
2.5Interdisciplinary approach
3. Methods
3.1 Primary data
3.2 Secondary data
3.3 Swot analysis
3.4 Raworth’s Doughnut Economics
3.5 Strategies
4. Results
4.1 SWOT analysis: Strengths
4.2 SWOT analysis: Weaknesses
4.3 SWOT analysis: Opportunities
4.4 SWOT analysis: Threats
4.5 Strategies
5. Conclusion
6. Discussion
7. References
8. Appendix
8.1 Appendix A: Transcript Jessica Duncan
8.2 Appendix B: Transcript Frans Bongers
p. 4
p. 5-10
p. 5
p. 6
p. 7
p. 8
p. 9
p. 10-11
p. 10
p. 10
p. 11
p. 11
p. 11
p. 12-19
p. 12
p. 13
p. 15
p. 17
p. 19
p. 20
p. 21
p. 22-25
p. 26-36
p. 26
p. 31
Introduction
Southern Africa has been in a continuous food security crisis since the 2000’s (Drimie & Casale, 2009). In 2018, approximately 29 million people were food insecure in this region, consisting the countries Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (Battersby, 2018). Soil fertility depletion, natural resource degradation and population pressure are some of the reasons Southern Africa has been in a negative downwards spiral of food and nutrition insecurity (Misselhorn, 2005). In the Southern region of Africa agriculture remains an important driving force for economic development and growth (Chilonda & Minde, 2007). Moreover, according to Mwase et al. (2015) agriculture is the main source of employment for nearly 80% of the population in rural areas. In several ways the agriculture sector is needed to address hunger and poverty, especially since the increase in population and food demand places massive pressure on agricultural land (Mwase et al., 2015).
An essential factor of food security is a stable food availability. One way to start the increase in food security, is to improve food availability (Kendall et al., 1996). Food availability entails that there is sufficient supply of various food types. The availability is focused on food productivity desiring a certain level of production (Aborisade & Bach, 2014). Population growth and poverty are reasons that food production is declining, thereby resulting in a decline in food availability and leading to food insecurity. Advancement in the agriculture sector is necessary to increase food availability (Aborisade & Bach, 2014).
Farmers in Southern Africa are searching for approaches to increase their food productivity and preserve their environment (Kwesiga et al., 2003). Mbow et al. (2014) argue that agroforestry can enhance food security and could provide several benefits for farmers, such as improving the food supply, income and health. Agroforestry is a sustainable land management practice that addresses land degradation and loss of soil fertility. It is an agriculture system that integrates livestock and crops with shrubs and trees (Mwase et al., 2015) and maintains and diversifies production leading to sociocultural, economic and environmental benefits for land users (FAO, 2015). From a sociocultural perspective, agroforestry can enhance rural livelihood and endorse local knowledge. In terms of environmental benefits, agroforestry diminishes agriculture’s contribution and vulnerability to climate change. Concerning the economic benefits, agroforestry can increase the income of farmers, and by doing so, their access to more nutritious food (FAO, 2015). Agroforestry is practiced by 480.000 smallholder farmers in Southern Africa (Kalaba et al., 2010). However, according to Mwase et al. (2015), there are mixed reactions from farming communities about the benefits of agroforestry and the adoption of this approach has not gone as fast as expected (Mwase et al., 2015).
The low adoption rate of agroforestry by farmers in Southern Africa has various reasons, which are divided in two categories; socioeconomic factors and biophysical factors. Within the socioeconomic factors, the slow adaptation rate is mainly due to governmental constraints
towards agroforestry leading to high initial costs of labour and herbicides, poor understanding of integrated soil management practices and limited land availability (Mwase et al., 2015).
The practice of agroforestry and its advantages are receiving internationally increased attention and is supported by scientific evidence (Franzel, Cooper & Denning, 2001; Sileshi et al., 2007; Kalaba et al., 2010) . However, there is space for improvement of this practice in order to combat food security (FAO, 2015). Therefore, we want to research ‘What is the potential role of agroforestry to increase food security in Southern Africa?’. With the variety of reasons and factors, agroforestry is a practice that takes place in diverse disciplines. So, an interdisciplinary approach will be applied in this research from the discipline’s biology, earth sciences, human geography and spatial planning. From a biological perspective, it can influence the food production through agroforestry and enhancing food security. From an earth sciences perspective, soil fertility is a key aspect. Because agroforestry addresses soil infertility, it can result in more sustainable land use resulting in better food security (FAO, 2015). In terms of a human geographical perspective, smallholder farmers are responsible for over 50% of the food production in Southern Africa. Depleting soil fertility and climate variability have led to declining crop yields and therefore poses threats towards the financial and food security of smallholder farmers (Waldron, 2017). Agroforestry has socio-economic benefits because it can enhance their income (FAO, 2015). In terms of a spatial planning perspective, Mwase et al. (2015) state that governmental policies greatly influence the adoption of agroforestry. Due to the policy and institutional constraints agroforestry has a low adoption rate for farmers. Making policies more suitable for adopting the practice can result in a better and higher use of agroforestry by farmers (Van Rooyen, 2000).
In this research, the theoretical framework will be described by using the theory of Raworth’s Doughnut Economics to measure sustainable development. This will be followed by, the methodology where the SWOT analysis and the use of primary and secondary data will be explained. With the SWOT analysis the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of agroforestry will be discussed. Furthermore, in the results the various disciplines will be integrated in the SWOT analysis on agroforestry and will be combined with Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. At last a conclusion and discussion will be given.
Theoretical framework
Food SecurityThe Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) refers to food security as: “a situation when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2018, p.7). Food security consists of four pillars; availability, utilization, stability and access, therefore making it a complex, broad and interdisciplinary concept. The definition of food security is a dynamic one; in the 1970’s, its main focus was on providing the availability of food and price stability through the using food surpluses and increasing food production (FAO, 2018). Later, the concept of food security broadened by including both the economic and the physical aspect of food availability. In 1983, the pillars of access and stability got included. During the World Food Summit in 1996 utilization got included as well, concerning the quality and type of food and a requirement to provide the nutrition necessary for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2018).
Where the food security debate was previously centered solely on hunger, availability and unmet needs, the emphasis has shifted to the environmental, health and social pressures on
food supply (Lang, 2012). This demands a new, more complex and integrated policy framework and analysis. In order to overcome global food insecurity in general, various changes must be implemented. With this, different and more complex constellation of issues should be taken in consideration, especially in developing regions such as Southern Africa. These issues are; a different consumer demand in highly populated, low income countries as their consuming behavior has changed and a nutrition transition is taking place; a shift from ‘top–down’ policies to more market-oriented ones (Lang, 2012); a more complex healthcare challenge as the frequency of diet-related diseases have increased (Lang, 2012); the split of power and control over food systems commercial interests and governments; the exacerbated impacts of food consumption, production and distribution on the environment (energy use, land use, water uptake); the culture of food changing from traditional and rule-driven to consumer choice-driven; the shift of power and influence from the land towards traders and retailers (Lang, 2012). However, due to the divergent conditions within Southern Africa, it is hard to implement changes enhancing food security. Therefore, policy measures need to be adjusted to the specific geophysical, demographic, economic and cultural conditions of different countries within Southern Africa.
Case description: Food security in Southern Africa
Southern Africa is a region in Africa, which entails countries from Angola in the North to South Africa in the South (Figure 2). As said before, Southern Africa is facing a food crisis. Currently food shortages are still a problem and predictions show that the regional food production per capita possibly will decrease in the future (Misselhorn, 2005). This has led to hunger, decrease of human well-being and malnutrition among the population.
Figure 2. Southern Africa (University of Texas, 2008).
All these consequences have posed challenges to governmental and non-governmental institutions, policies and decision-makers. Another notable factor for food security is climate change. Southern Africa was extremely affected by the climatic conditions of El Nino in 2015 – 2016, which has led to crop losses and declining agricultural production leading to higher food prices (FAO, 2018). In addition, due to the changing rainfall patterns the growing season length of crops has diminished. According to the statistics of FAO (2018) the percentage of food
insecure people in Southern Africa did not rise as fast as other African regions. However, in 2017 still 30,9% of the population is food insecure in the region, visualized in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Prevalence of severe food insecurity (FAO, 2018). Raworth’s Doughnut Economics
As food security considers both social (e.g. access and health) and biophysical factors (e.g. production and availability), this could be examined with reference to Raworth’s Doughnut Economics, elaborating on both aspects in order to achieve sustainable practices. To measure sustainable development, Raworth (2012) combined the concept of planetary boundaries (Rockström, 2009) with a complementary concept of social boundaries. This gets visualized by a doughnut-shaped framework in which a social foundation forms the inner boundary, consisting of eleven dimensions of human deprivation, amongst which the dimension of food (Figure 4). The environmental ceiling makes the outer boundary, consisting of nine dimensions of environmental degradation. Between the two boundaries there is a doughnut-shaped space in which humanity can thrive in a socially just and environmentally safe space. Within this space, inclusive and sustainable economic development can take place (Raworth, 2012).
The concept emphasizes how poverty and environmental stresses influence each other and interact. To reduce environmental pressures, increased equality is necessary as the richest 10% of the world is known to overconsume, exploit and overuse natural resources, exceeding the planetary boundaries of which Rockström (2009) speaks (Raworth, 2012). By tackling social injustice and reducing poverty, there will be more room for improvement within the environmental ceiling as more people have the means to consider the environment when their basic needs are met. As this concept also takes social influences into account, it creates a more realistic point of view on how to reach sustainable development.
However, some critics argue how Raworth’s Doughnut is incomplete and missing a “third hole” as it undermines the crucial role of the willingness of political and economic actors to adjust (Milanovic, 2018). This is also of relevant when looking at the situation in Southern Africa, as there could be spoken of a mismatch between policy and implementation. This shortcoming The extent to which world actors, especially politicians, gain sufficient information and the suitable motives run parallel to the degree of sustainable development. As political and economic actors are often driven by their own interests, it is complex to execute a more sustainable policy (Lang, 2012). The role agroforestry could play in improving the environmental ceiling and social foundation will be examined. To do so, the concept of agroforestry will first be elaborated.
Figure 4. Raworth's Doughnut Economics, combining the 11 dimensions of the social foundation and the 9 dimensions of the environmental ceiling (Raworth, 2012).
Agroforestry
Agroforestry is a land use management system in which crops are cultivated around trees and shrubs. Its practices multiple cropping at which three conditions apply: there are at least two plant species that interact biologically, one species is a woody species and at least one of the plant species is managed for crop production (Figure 5) (Somarriba, 1992). As agroforestry practices polyculture instead of monoculture, it increases the resilience of crops to external factors such as soil degradation and climate change. In addition, agroforestry generally leads to significant increased yields (Waldron, 2017). Therefore, agroforestry not only meets the Sustainable Development Goals but also enhances the financial security of farmers as they are less financial vulnerable to the unpredictability of their harvest and the market. This increased financial security on its turn results in strengthened food security (Waldron, 2017). In this context, agroforestry has potential to provide food security and reduce environmental pressures, contributing to a more sustainable and durable food production. Therefore, it could make a key contribution of the United Nation goals of ending global hunger and building sustainable food systems (Rahman, 2018). Looking from Raworth’s (2012) Doughnut Economics, agroforestry can strengthen social foundation, enabling improvement within the environmental ceiling.
The agroforestry cropping systems developed in Southern Africa differ per prevalent pattern of farm activities and the available natural resources. Appropriate agroforestry technologies vary depending on dominant cropping systems and agroecology (Beedy, 2014). Agroforestry practices in Southern Africa therefore take many forms, but most African smallholders have a tendency toward multipurpose mosaics instead of uniform field management. For instance, the most common smallholder farming system in Southern African agroforestry is the maize mixed system, where maize is cultivated around different cash crops, which are crops cultivated to be sold on markets such as rubber and cotton. As a consequence, the number of useful crop combinations with agroforestry is increasing (Beedy, 2014).
Figure 5. Agroforestry practice by farmer in Malawi (Admin, 2015). Interdisciplinary approach
In this research are four disciplines involved: biology, earth science, human geography and spatial planning. By using different disciplines, the disadvantages of one discipline can be remedied by the advantages of another discipline, thereby creating interdisciplinary insights. It is a complex problem, because it involves more than one discipline or perspective to upscale agroforestry in the farming sector. From a biological discipline it is mostly a positive practice due to the biophysical benefits, but from a social discipline it turns out that farmers are not totally convinced about the practice. Thus, this research can be approached in an interdisciplinary direction, with the use of cross tabling are the disciplines combined to see the connection between the different disciplines. The disciplines are combined, with the use of the theoretical framework Raworth’s Doughnut Economics and the SWOT analysis. The integrated framework is shown in Table 1. At the left side of the table, the discipline which has impact on other disciplines is shown. The discipline that is shown at the top of the table, undergoes this impact.
Table 1. Integrated framework with the four disciplines: biology, earth science, human geography and spatial planning.
Impact on →
Impact from ↓ Biology Earth Science Human Geography Spatial Planning
Biology X Impact soil
properties (ES) caused by different plant species (BIO). The availability of food is dependent (HG) on what is biological possible (BIO). The impact of policy making (SP) on the use of fertilizer on crops (BIO) Earth Science Impact nutrients
availability for the plants (BIO) caused by different agroforestry methods (ES). X The availability of food (HG) is dependent on soil properties as these determine yields (ES) The impact of policy (SP) on different agroforestry methods (ES) what results in different soil
properties. Human
Geography Implications of biology (BIO) are pushed back by law when these are not socially desired (HG). Impact of tree harvesting on the soil properties (ES) caused by the need of wood to build houses (HG). X Policy (SP) influences the circumstances of agroforestry which either benefits or disadvantages the farmers (HG) Spatial Planning Available
agricultural land (BIO) is
dependent on the land use of certain areas (SP). Impact of increased nitrogen fixation (ES) on policy making (SP). The adoption rate of agroforestry by farmers (HG) is affected by policy making (SP) X
Methodology
This research is a case study that focuses on the region Southern Africa. This study is made in combination with different disciplines that are combined to solve the complex issue with an interdisciplinary approach. For our research we used primarily and secondary data (Bryman, 2016) and these were retrieved from literature and interviews. The SWOT analysis is used to process the data. The theoretical framework that is used is Raworth Doughnut of Economics.
Primary data
The primary data is collected with the use of semi structured interviews. The data from the interviews is used to see whether the literature was representative for the current situation in Southern Africa. The first interviewee was expert Jessica Duncan, she is an assistant professor in the Rural Sociology Group at Wageningen University. Dr. Duncan is specialized in food policy in relationship with the environment. The second interview is completed with Frans Bongers, he is specialized in forest ecology and forest management. The interviewees are specialized on different parts of our subject and have different background. Jessica Duncan her expertise is used to gain more knowledge about the impact of policies and the problems when it comes to food security. Frans Bongers his expertise is used to gain more knowledge about the agroforestry and its implementation. However, combining the information that they provided us, was covering the data that we needed to do our research. Both of their perspectives on this subject gave us a complete overview. The interviewees were asked specific questions, and we discussed this in the SWOT based on literature to see what was still missing or differ from their point of view. The transcripts of these interviews are located in Appendix A and B.
Secondary data
First, more information was gained about agroforestry and the current situation in Southern Africa when it comes to food security. The literature is based on previous researches on factors in agroforestry, such as the effect of different plant species or land use management strategies, that are combined in this research. The agroforestry literature is mainly based on the current
situation in Southern Africa such as the article of Chirwa et al. (2008). Overall literature about agroforestry is used to get a better understanding about the processes that can take place and things that are different between the overall concepts and the specific ones in Southern Africa. For example, the FAO (2018) is used to get an overview from food security and nutrition globally.
Swot analysis
The used method to process the data was the SWOT analysis. The SWOT analysis stands for Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats and is a strategic planning technique (Pickton & Wright, 1998). The SWOT analysis is used to give a structured overview of the Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of agroforestry. The different perspectives from the disciplines are combined in the SWOT analysis and are integrated in the conclusions that are made based on the SWOT analysis. The weaknesses from a discipline can be overcome with the strengths of another discipline, this leads to an interdisciplinary conclusion. In order to structure the data, a SWOT analysis is set up, this was based on both literature research and interviews.
The Raworth’s Doughnut is integrated in the SWOT analysis. Raworth’s Doughnut is integrated to give a structured method to classify the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The SWOT analysis is chosen because it identifies the internal and external factors in a system and the advantages and the disadvantages, beyond the limitations of separate disciplines (Pickton & Wright, 1998). The SWOT analysis is used more often to investigate different farming techniques. An example of a research that focused on different farming techniques with the use of SWOT analysis is Ommani (2011). In this research the SWOT analysis is used to identify strategies in farming systems, the analysis helps to manage the priorities of the farming systems to achieve food security. From the SWOT analysis can be concluded what the possibilities are for the implementation to increase food security in Southern Africa.
Raworth’s Doughnut Economics
The Raworth's Doughnut Economics framework is used to visualize sustainable development by combining the planetary boundaries and social boundaries. The theoretical framework that is used to answer the research question is Raworth’s Doughnut Economics, this gives an overview whether agroforestry is a sustainable method and it will visualize the human interactions with the environmental interactions. The combination of the primary and secondary data will be presented in the SWOT analysis and Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. Both frameworks integrate the different perspectives of interdisciplinary research. There is a combination between the different disciplines combined in the SWOT analysis and in the inner and outer circle of Raworth’s Doughnut Economics framework.
Strategies
At the end of the analysis the main strategies are formed. These strategies are based on the SWOT analysis in combination with Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. The strategies are explained and directed to different organizations that can help implement these strategies.
Results
The SWOT factors of agroforestry in Southern Africa in combination with the influence on food security are shown in Table 2. Those factors, and especially the bold ones, are discussed in their section. These factors are based on literature reviews and primary data from both interviews and are the most represented factors of agroforestry on food security. The strengths represent the positive aspects of agroforestry on food security. The weaknesses are the limitations of agroforestry when it comes to increasing food security and where improvement need to be made. The opportunities are external aspects that provide new possibilities and the threats are external challenges which declines the success of agroforestry to improve food security. Each factor is discussed in combination with the different aspects in Raworth’s Doughnut Economics.
Strengths
The SWOT analysis starts with an overview of the strengths. This part of the analysis will show in which way progress will be made when agroforestry is implemented and how this can increase the food security in Southern Africa. First of all, many studies have proven that agroforestry will increase soil quality (Dollinger & Jose, 2018; Young, 1989), as agroforestry results in both an increase of soil nutrient availability and an increase of water holding capacity; the effect of implementation of trees shows an improvement of structure, porosity, water holding capacity and permeability of the soil. Because of the roots, there will be deeper infiltration of the water and there is nutrient retention because the roots are able to take up nutrients from a deeper layer in the soil compared to other crop types (Jose, 2009). Nitrogen-fixing trees can be used instead of nitrogen fertilizers. The shadow caused by the trees lowers the evaporation. But also, trees are able to increase the inputs of organic matter, nitrogen and nutrient uptake, because the nutrients remain in the system for a longer time compared with other crop types and when dead plant material is left by the trees, there is organic matter added to the soil. In this way, nutrients are recycled. In result, the amount of soil organic carbon storage increases when there is a transition from a system without trees to agroforestry (Jose, 2009). So, agroforestry helps to enrich the soil and also benefits the physical, chemical and biological conditions of the soil, which can be helpful in Southern Africa since there is a lack of fertile soil for agriculture.
Besides improving soil health, agroforestry has also the potential to reduce vulnerability to climate change (Dollinger & Jose, 2018). The vulnerability to climate change can be reduced in multiple ways. Trees that are used in agroforestry can prevent wind erosion by proving wind boundaries. (Hartemink & Huting, 2008). Agroforestry has environmental benefits. This is not only desirable for the climate, but it will help farmers economically. When there is less vulnerability to climate change, the impact of extreme weather, such as heat damage, is declined. Less sensitivity to extreme weather will give farmers more stability of the yield, because their losses will decrease. This leads to another strength; a more stable income for the farmers. On the long term, yield losses will be reduced, and soils will be fertile for a longer period of time. Dependent on biotic and abiotic circumstances, some crops will be more productive than others. When practicing agroforestry, multiple crops are cultivated. This results in less dependency of the farmer on only one crop, which is mostly the case with monoculture and this is another factor that positively influences the sustainable income for farmers (F. Bongers, personal
communication, 30 April 2019). When one type of crop is lost because of diseases, there is still an income for the farmer based on the other type of crops.
Besides the fact that agroforestry is a sustainable land use management system, the food production is also increased on the short term. The research of Pretty et al. (2011) shows an increase of the yield. They broke continuous maize cultivation with two year out of five to cultivate Calliandra and Tephrosia in Malawi, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia and Cameroon. Even though there was no cultivation of maize for two year, the eventual production is increased as a result of the cultivation of the soil-improving plants. In this case, the production was raised to 8 tons compared with 5 tons over a five-year period (Pretty et al., 2011).
Another advantage of agroforestry is the biodiversity that comes with it. Compared to monoculture, agroforestry provides more different crops per area (Atta-Krah et al., 2004). This is beneficial in multiple ways, for example it leads to an increase in diversity in locally accessible crops. This can lead to a more diverse diet of people living in these areas. And a diverse range of crops will also lead to more indirect biodiversity (F. Bongers, personal communication 30 April 2019). This is caused by the different niches that are provided by agroforestry practices. In those niches, multiple organisms will live there, attracting other organisms (such as predators or mutualists).
According to Frans Bongers (2019), agroforestry is actually achievable for all sorts of farmers. The advantage is that agroforestry is applicable on a small scale. This means that the transition to agroforestry does not have to happen all at once but can be made in multiple steps. For example, the edges of farmland can be used to cultivate a small number of different crops. Another way to practice agroforestry is with homegardens. Homegardens have commonly been characterized as a biodiverse and sustainable land use system (Abebe et al., 2006). In this way, many people can be involved, creating more independency when it comes to food production. In general, agroforestry has the potential to increase food production and to reduce the agricultural footprint on the environment (FAO, Agroforestry provides practical solutions to global problems, 2019). When looked at the Raworth’s Doughnut Economics, the strengths provide improvement at both social as planetary aspects. Agroforestry will have a positive impact on climate change and biodiversity loss. When soils are more fertile, less fertilizer needs to be used. This can lead to a decline in nitrogen and phosphorus loading. The ecological ceiling; land conversion, is a less straightforward, because it depends on where agroforestry is practiced whether there will be improvement on this aspect. However, when agroforestry is compared to monoculture, land conversion is less needed, and agroforestry will result is less deforestation to turnover land into agricultural ground. Improvements that will be made on the social foundation are mainly in the section’s health, because of a more diverse diet, and food, because of the enhanced access to it. According to the Raworth Doughnut Economics, the advantages of the implementation of agroforestry are sustainable.
Weaknesses
The first two weaknesses are the delayed return of the investment and the under-developed markets. Agroforestry systems become profitable over time, the expected breakeven point can be after several years, due to the longer growing period of the trees to produce fruits or nuts and the environmental benefits will be shown after a longer time period (Buttoud et al., 2013). Unlike conventional agricultural farmers, net losses are common in the first period of implementation to agroforestry practices. This results in a decrease in enthusiasm for investing in agroforestry in poor regions. Besides the delayed investment many markets are not suitable
for tree products. The markets that are suitable for these projects are less efficient and less developed than the markets that focus on crops and livestock (Buttoud et al., 2013).
This leads to the third weakness namely the adverse policies that influence agroforestry and food security in Southern Africa. The adverse policies are based on the unclear status of land and tree resources. The unclear status is due to the unsecured or ambiguous land tenure. This results in confusion of land delineation and rights. The lack of long-term rights to land ownership inhibits the long-term financial investments that are needed to implement agroforestry. The absence of rights often results in conflicts of interest between the state and land users. Besides the absence of rights, also the tenure insecurity is one of the causes of the lack of implementation of agroforestry. In many cases the tree products belong to the landowners (Buttoud et al., 2013). It is common to have competing claims of tenure rights, for example seasonal rights. Moreover, the policy of attracting large scale investors have resulted in an increase of food insecurity in rural communities. In some cases, forest regulations are inhibiting tree growing on farms to be restricting the harvest, cutting and selling tree products. Besides the adverse policies there are also adverse regulation. The multifunctional land management that is needed by agroforestry leads to more restrictions and complicated taxation. More frequently, agricultural policy gives fines to practices that are needed for the implementation of agroforestry. This policy is controversial due to the lack of fines for large-scale agricultural, food and fuel products (Buttoud et al., 2013). The lack of collaboration between the agricultural and forestry ministries leads to complicated bureaucratic claims (J. Duncan, personal communication, 30 April 2019).
The two different ministries that are involved in agroforestry worldwide is one of the problems of the lack of coordination between sectors (F. Bongers, personal communication, 30 April 2019). But also, other sectors are involved such as, livestock, rural development, environment, health and water. This often leads to policy conflicts and creates gaps or adverse development. Mostly, agroforestry belongs to all sectors, but in practice it belongs to none of them. There is no worldwide institution that takes the lead role in the integration of the sectors. The agriculture department focused on crop production and trees are excluded in the thinking method. The global forestry department does not think that is possible to grow good quality timber between crops. The environmental departments dislike the regulated rows in which the crops and trees can be planted. The use of chemicals and intensive management is not in line with the seeing method of the environmental department (Buttoud et al., 2013).
The fourth weakness is the lack of research and outreach of the implementation of agroforestry. It is difficult to detect the trends in the use of trees in combination with crops, due to the small-scale research estimates (Mbow et al., 2014). From the small-scale research is estimated that there is an increase in the use of trees on farmland. Also, one of the problems is that major agriculture organizations such as the FAO in their Global Forest Assessment not have a separate land use category for agroforestry. Better knowledge about the value-chain and a diverse market is needed for the variety of tree products. The inadequate knowledge of agroforestry leads to a restricted interest of policy makers in the development of agroforestry. The limited dispersal of ideas and information prevents a further spread of agroforestry systems. Rarely is the agroforestry method teached on agriculture or forestry schools (Buttoud et al., 2013). The lack of experience and low capacity of this method in both the traditional and new agroforestry systems result in the unwillingness of farmers to change from the agricultural method to agroforestry. The lack of knowledge does not only influence the farmers but also the professionals and advisers become sceptic. Breeding methods to improve agroforestry have little attention in comparison with the breeding methods of short-term monoculture cropping
systems (Buttoud et al., 2013). The lack of research to different tree species with a better-quality germplasm leads to a low variability in species that are used in agroforestry systems. Due to the lack of interest there are a lot of opportunities missed to reduce the time that trees can start full production. The situation of lack of knowledge is made worse due to the lack of publicity for agroforestry methods that are successful. Policy makers have not only the lack of knowledge about the strength of agroforestry, but they lack knowledge about the negative impacts of the conventional methods. One of the most common beliefs is due to the lack of knowledge, that trees negatively influence the growth of agricultural crops (Buttoud et al., 2013).
The influence on financial methods is located in the social foundation of Raworth’s Doughnut Economics and is found in the category income. The social foundation in the category income includes ending income poverty for the global population that gets less than $1.25 a day (Raworth, 2012). The financial chains of agroforestry receive little political support. In Raworth’s Doughnut Economics the lack of coordination is mainly located in the social foundation of voice. All the different sectors need to express and communicate with each other to increase the implementation of agroforestry. The equality in fines and policy structures is also mainly located in the social foundation of Raworth’s Doughnut Economics voices. This section focuses on the political participation that is restricted (Raworth, 2012). In this case there are not equal laws for different agricultural methods. The lack of knowledge is mainly located in the education section in Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. The lack of educational backgrounds about these methods results in wrong assumptions that leads to a lack on implementation of agroforestry (Raworth, 2012).
Opportunities
The negative and positive internal factors of agroforestry are discussed, so now it is necessary to research the opportunities within this farming practice.
Since agroforestry has various weaknesses, there is space for improvement. As said before, agroforestry can have sociocultural, economic and environmental benefits which can be in effect when the opportunities are considered. As Mwase et al. (2015) stated there is a low adoption rate of agroforestry by farmers in Southern Africa, meaning that opportunities can have a significant role for higher and better adoption by farmers.
The first opportunity is enhancing awareness of the advantages of agroforestry. As pointed out by Buttoud et al. (2013), there is an inadequate and a lack of knowledge of agroforestry and its advantages. This not only influences farmers but also leads to skepticism by professionals. Therefore, it is important to emphasize and demonstrate the usefulness of agroforestry in various sectors such as the agriculture and forestry sector. A way to accomplish this enhanced awareness is by including interested actors from relevant sectors and assess the costs and benefits at all levels, national and local. Such insights can be very relevant for smallholder farmers when assessing financial incentives (Buttoud et al., 2013).
This leads to the second opportunity namely promoting the benefits of agroforestry through policies. Biological and technological elements are essential; however, they are insufficient to guarantee that farmers will massively adopt agroforestry as their farming practice. The governmental and institutional framework are fundamental, according to Ajayi & Place (2012) governmental policies are crucial in the facilitation of agroforestry adoption. Without governmental involvement, the use of agroforestry practices would be less successful and socially optimal (Ajayi et al., 2013). Policies promoting agroforestry and its benefits should exist out of tools that form favorable conditions and a set of action for the development of the practice, so a clear framework should be established. Without governmental policies and
involvement, investments in agroforestry from the private sector would be less (Buttoud et al. (2013). According to Jessica Duncan (J. Duncan, personal communication, 30 April 2019) the policy level is indeed the level to focus on because she thinks that this is the level where the most progress for agroforestry can be made.
Another opportunity for agroforestry to grow as a farming practice is the development of new technologies. According to Merwin (1997), developing farm-level analyses of the possible benefits, costs and risks related to agroforestry are needed. This is in line with the first opportunity which also recommended to assess the costs and benefits of the practice. For agroforestry to thrive among farmers it should be taken into account that technical information must be developed regionally or locally for application within that region (Merwin, 1997). General based information and studies are not likely to convince landowners to adapt agroforestry practices. Applied management techniques are needed to maximize the tangible short and help to increase the intermediate benefits. Also, Frans Bongers (personal communication, 30 April 2019) is in line with the urge of technological development in order to increase the use of agroforestry by smallholder farmers. He states that it is needed to develop a much more diverse range of technological support, because he thinks that the current machines for the farmers aren’t right. There is the potential to integrate agroforestry research in college what leads to an increase in research. Furthermore, there needs to be more evaluations about price trends of agroforestry products what gives a better overview of the potential for farmers to shift from tradition agriculture to agroforestry practices. To optimize the agroforestry design, it is also needed to research the interactions of tree-crop-animal-environment (Merwin, 1997).
Another opportunity for using agroforestry has an employment background. As Mwase et al. (2015) said before, Southern Africa is agriculture-based, meaning a lot of people’s livelihood depends on it. Practicing agroforestry is a way of providing jobs in the sustainable working sector. Smallholder farmers have more knowledge and are more labour intensive than corporate farms. Because smallholder farms are more labour intensive than industrialized agriculture, it can be a source of (green) jobs. There is a potential for jobs due to the fact of adaptation to climate change. Efforts to protect food crops from environmental degradation for instance through planting trees or rehabilitating degraded crop can support the rural livelihood through work. To provide as many workers with the necessary knowledge, governmental incentives and clear policies are needed, perhaps through training and building programs (Renner et al., 2008).
Agroforestry has various opportunities, which will now be linked to Raworth’s Doughnut of Economics. When looked at the Doughnut of Economics, the opportunities are located in the social foundation. The discussed opportunities are linked to various dimensions, namely the education, jobs and income dimension. The first opportunity discussed was enhancing the awareness of the advantages of agroforestry, which can be found in the education dimension. As people are educated about the advantages of agroforestry and the practice itself, knowledge is exchanged between experts and smallholder farmers. Frans Bongers (F. Bongers, personal communication, 30 April 2019) also states that the people are uneducated about this practice, so creating more awareness could lead to an increase in the adoption of agroforestry (Buttoud et al., 2013), while building up the education dimension. The second opportunity discussed, using policies for promoting the benefits of agroforestry, is located in the education dimension in the social foundation, however it is not fully represented by this dimension. Policies or a political dimension is not represented in the model, therefore undermining the crucial role and potential of this aspect (Milanovic, 2018). The development of new technologies was the third opportunity, which can be found in the education dimension. The last opportunity, providing
jobs in sustainable working sector, is directly located in the jobs dimension, as it provides jobs, and indirectly in the education dimension, as people are being educated during the process. This combination of dimensions also enhances the financial security of smallholder farmers as they are less financial vulnerable to the unpredictability of their harvest and the market. As increased financial security strengthens food security, agroforestry has the potential to improve the quality of life and therefore wellbeing of smallholder farmers (Waldron, 2017).
Threats
Opposite to weaknesses, threats are external to the situation. Four major threats will be discussed in detail after which these will be linked to Raworth’s Doughnut Economics; climate variability, population growth, impeding policies and lack of extension knowledge. The first important threat to agroforestry lies within climate change and variability. Climate change can be considered a threat especially to smallholder agroforestry. Most climate change models expect an increase in negative impacts of climate change in Southern Africa (Stainback, 2012). Climate change is predicted to make agriculture, including agroforestry, more difficult by reducing production and causing greater climatic variation. Therefore, it is projected to negatively impact food production as climate variability increases and extremes occur more frequently (Stainback, 2012).
Population growth has also been identified as a major obstacle to agroforestry. The Southern African population has been growing with a rate of approximately 0,95% annually in the past five years (Mwase, 2015). Many smallholder farmers are already farming on a hectare or less and due to the predicted further population growth, it will be more difficult to encourage smallholder farmers to devote a portion of their land to trees as land plot sizes continue to decrease (Stainback, 2012).
Third, different policy barriers impede the implementation of agroforestry from which two categories of policy research concerning agroforestry can be distinguished: policies to stimulate the contribution of agroforestry to sustainable land use, and policies aiming to reverse existing policies which impede agroforestry. Within these two types of policies there can be distinguished three main policy research issues; tree and land tenure, assistance to farmers to overlap the time lag in which the trees become productive and the valuation of environmental externalities (Sanchez, 1995). The implementation of agroforestry is often hindered by policy, institutional and legal conditions. This leads to the environmental benefits being mostly unrecognized, making investment unattractive because of the long time between adoption and return. Certain policies are therefore needed to promote the benefits of agroforestry, which will be described in the strategies.
And finally, another threat is the lack of extension knowledge. As smallholder farmers are highly dependent on external knowledge, an inadequate extension support by the government causes a knowledge gap amongst smallholder farmers concerning the application of agroforestry and its benefits (Mbow, 2014). A better knowledge of value-chain actors and consumers, specially focusing on promoting diverse markets for the wide variety of tree products and species is required. In order to manage the trees and crops in agroforestry systems, specific knowledge of their properties is necessary. Desirable information includes the form and size of the aboveground portion of tree crowns and the root system; the suitableness for specific agroforestry practices and the climatic adaptations of different species, including the adaptation to various soils and external stresses (Mbow, 2014).
Four different threats have been identified which will now be analyzed within the framework of Doughnut Economics. First, the threat of climate change and variability has been
discussed. This threat can be classified within Raworth’s Doughnut as climate change is a dimension of environmental degradation on its own. Secondly, the threat of population growth has been discussed. Since overpopulation is often the result of lack of birth control, it could be associated with the social dimension of education and income, as people in poorer regions often don’t have the knowledge or means to use contraceptives (Raworth, 2012). According to Raworth, reproductive rights could alleviate the pressure of population growth on the environment whilst reducing the required resources to enable each person to prosper above the social foundation. These rights would entail the insurance of every woman’s right to access sexual and reproductive health care (Raworth, 2012). The threat of policy barriers can be location in the dimension of voice. As mentioned before, this section focuses on restricted political participation. As policies concerning agriculture and forestry practices are mainly implemented by more conservative institutions, these are often not favorable for stimulating agroforestry practices. Local institutions often have little to no influence on these policies even though they are being affected by them (F. Bongers, personal communication, 30 April 2019). And finally, the threat of a lack of extension knowledge can be located within Raworth’s (2012) dimension of education. The lack of sufficient education in Southern Africa on agroforestry makes them dependent on external knowledge. Also, there could be spoken of a deficit in education from external countries as the transmission of this extension knowledge is often inadequate, creating a knowledge gap amongst smallholder farmers (Mbow, 2014).
The factors that are discussed above in the section’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are structured in Table 2. The discussed factors are the main focus of this research and are shown in bold.
Table 2. Aspects that influence agroforestry and food security in Southern Africa identified with the use of primary and secondary data in each SWOT category. The aspects are listed in alphabetical order. The aspects in bold are the main focus based on literature research and primary data.
Strengths Weaknesses
Increase food productivity Increase of biodiversity Increase soil quality
Reduces vulnerability to climate change
Provide a more diverse diet
Provide sustainable income farmers Sustainable way of food production
Adverse policies Delayed investment
Lack of coordination between sectors Lack of specific research and outcomes
Limited land availability
Slow adaptation rate of smallholder farmers
Opportunities Threats
Development of new technologies Enhance awareness advantages Promotion of benefits by policies Sustainable working sector
Boost local food markets
Less deforestation might result in less floods and droughts
Climate change and variability Population growth
Lack of/dependency on extension knowledge result in decrease strengths Policy barriers
Emphasis on commercial agriculture Small market for tree products
Strategies
The SWOT method is used to investigate what the dis- and advantages are of agroforestry as potential to improve food security, within the boundaries of Raworth’s Doughnut of Economics. All the SWOT aspects have now been discussed and are shown in Table 2. Each SWOT category has been analyzed and linked to Raworth’s Doughnut. The SWOT analysis can be used to identify certain strategies for agroforestry development in order to increase food security. To develop useful strategies, it is important to look at the weaknesses and threats.
Policy-related concerns have been present in both threats and weaknesses of agroforestry adoption. Adverse regulations and policies that are contradicting play a great role in the low adoption of agroforestry. As said before by Buttoud et al. (2013), it is necessary to include stakeholder input, accessible knowledge, appropriate technologies and extension services and good governance. These are important factors to create a good policy for agroforestry regulation. So, the first crucial strategy is to reform adverse policies using extension services in order to enlighten the farmers with knowledge about the practice. In that way, farmers are not dependent on external knowledge alone. Duncan & Bongers (personal communication, 30 April 2019) also argue that education and involving the small-holder farmers in the policy process is an essential strategy to increase the adoption rate of agroforestry. Also, Duncan (J. Duncan, personal communication, 30 April 2019) stated that the current exchange of knowledge by the government (extension services) has decreased, while this is an important asset.
Another strategy is elaborating new agriculture policies that acknowledge the role of trees in rural development (Buttoud et al., 2013). There is lack of coordination between governmental sectors due to the fact that various sectors such as agriculture and forestry operate separately. Frans Bongers (F. Bongers, personal communication, 30 April 2019) stands with this notion, he argues that the separation of various sectors/ministries and competition between these sectors, forms an obstacle for the adoption rate of agroforestry in Southern Africa.
As mentioned before, certain policies need to be developed in order to allow agroforestry to develop in Southern Africa. The general objective of these policies should be to assist Southern Africa in developing policy, institutional and legal arrangements that pave the way for the adoption of agroforestry and recognize its benefits and contribution to regional development. For this, it would be needed to mainstream agroforestry in national policies and enhance communication between different sectors (Buttoud et al., 2013).
In order to implement strategies or to tackle the adoption issues it is useful to have an institution or actor who is responsible or involved in this process. The FAO is an institution that tries to achieve food security worldwide and is an agency of the United Nations. It has done many researches about agroforestry, however it has not a separate department for agroforestry.
Creating a specific department can be useful for focusing on implementing this farming practice more efficiently.
As said before, extension service can play a significant role in exchanging knowledge and educating the farming community. According to Duncan (Personal communication, 30 April 2019) this should be done through specific and personal advice instead of a creating a broad framework. Thus, promoting agroforestry on a local level through the national government can be useful.
Conclusion
To meet food demands in the future, a sustainable and efficient way of cultivating food will be necessary. This research has assessed the potential of agroforestry to enhance food security in Southern Africa. First, the concept of food security has been outlined, a theory resting on four pillars; access, availability, stability and utilization. All four of these are complex issues that are intertwined with a range of interrelated social, economic, ecological and political factors, which pose challenges towards the ability of Southern Africa to ensure food security.
In this research a SWOT analysis integrated with Raworth Doughnut Economics is carried out. The outcome of this analysis shows the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of agroforestry. Important strengths are increasing food productivity, biodiversity, soil quality and reduces the vulnerability to climate change. Weaknesses are adverse policies, delayed investments, lack of coordination between sectors and lack of specific research and outcomes. Opportunities are the development of new technologies, enhancing awareness advantages among farmers, promotion of the benefits through policies and providing a sustainable working sector. Threats are population growth, climate change and variability, policy barriers, lack of extensional knowledge of the outcomes what results in a decrease in strengths.
With the outcome of the SWOT analysis, strategies can be developed in order to tackle the weaknesses and the threats. The advised strategies in order to increase the agroforestry use in Southern Africa are mostly policy related. So, the first crucial strategy is to reform adverse policies using extension services in order to enlighten the farmers with knowledge about the practice. In that way, farmers are not dependent on external knowledge alone. Another strategy is elaborating new agriculture policies that acknowledge the role of trees in rural development. The general objective of these policies should be to assist Southern Africa in developing policy, institutional and legal arrangements that pave the way for the adoption of agroforestry and recognize its benefits and contribution to regional development. The institution that can implement these strategies and to tackle the adaptation issue is the FAO. With creating a specific department for agroforestry will it be easier to tackle the adaptation issues.
With the strategies and the acknowledged strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats a more useful agroforestry promotion can be realized in Southern Africa. To answer the research question ‘What is the potential role of agroforestry to increase food security in Southern Africa?’; agroforestry is a sustainable farming practice and has potential to provide economic, ecological and cultural benefits. However, there are still severe complications with the implementation of this practice, whereby the role of agroforestry to tackle food security is not at
its highest. Therefore, it is necessary to keep promoting agroforestry as a useful farming practice.
Discussion
The potential role of agroforestry to increase food security is a question where further research is still needed. Multiple actors and sectors are involved in this practice, which all have various values. With climate change there are a lot of uncertainties about the future of the live ability of the region and farmers, the farming practice will only work if there is consultation and cooperation between these sectors and actors.
Agroforestry is a land use management that has many benefits. However, these results will only be achieved when a lot of different factors are beneficial for agroforestry. So, there are many improvements for the environment, compared to monoculture. However, how well this improvement will be depending on the area where agroforestry is practiced. As Frans Bongers said, there are many kinds of agroforestry, which have different qualities (F. Bongers, personal communication, 30 April 2019). What differs even more in each situation, are the environmental conditions. The results of agroforestry will differ depending on the climate. Different kind of agroforestry are more suited for different climate types. So, the profits of agroforestry will differ in each situation. Therefore, it is important that further research looks into specific situations. To maximize potential benefits, agroforestry needs to be practiced in a way that is most suited in that specific situation, together with crops which are most adapted to corresponding circumstances. In order to achieve this, it is important that farmers are educated to practice agroforestry in a successful way. There is more research needed to find out what the best way is to educate the farmers in Southern Africa, which organization could be accountable for this and is able to give personal advice to the farmers.
What might even be more decisive whether agroforestry can live up to it is potential is the willingness of the farmers to apply these methods. Not only do they need to be provided with the right education, they also need to be prepared to change from their old habits and to switch to a whole new mindset. A mentionable aspect is that religion and mindset were especially named by Frans Bongers as important aspect of adoption, however during the literature research none of these aspects were named. New policies and the right help could reduce the impact of this switch, but the farmers need to have an open mind to adapt to these new methods. This is a way for agroforestry to work, which is also a new point to focus on in further research. In order to make agroforestry a more successful way of agriculture, and to involve more people, further research is required to gain those new insights.
References
Abebe, T., Wiersum, K. F., Bongers, F. J. J. M., & Sterck, F. (2006). Diversity and dynamics in homegardens of southern Ethiopia. In Tropical Homegardens (pp. 123-142). Springer, Dordrecht. Aborisade, B., & Bach, C. (2014). Assessing the pillars of sustainable food security. European International Journal of Science and Technology, 3(4), 117-125.
Admin, (2015). Beating Famine conference tackles food insecurity in Southern Africa - Agroforestry World [Illustration]. Retrieved on 4 April 2019 from
http://blog.worldagroforestry.org/index.php/2015/04/13/beating-famine-conference-tackles-food-insecurity-in-southern-africa/
Ajayi, O. C., & Place, F. (2012). Policy support for large-scale adoption of agroforestry practices: experience from Africa and Asia. In Agroforestry-The Future of Global Land Use (pp. 175-201). Springer, Dordrecht.
Atta-Krah, K., Kindt, R., Skilton, J. N., & Amaral, W. (2004). Managing biological and genetic diversity in tropical agroforestry. In New Vistas in Agroforestry (pp. 183-194). Springer, Dordrecht.
Battersby, J. (2018). MDGs to SDGs–new goals, same gaps: the continued absence of urban food security in the post-2015 global development agenda. African Geographical Review, 36(1), 115-129.
Beedy, T. L., Nyamadzawo, G., Luedeling, E., Kim, D. G., Place, F., & Hadgu, K. (2014). 11 Agroforestry for Small Landholders of Eastern and Southern Africa. Soil Management of Smallholder Agriculture, 21, 237.
Buttoud, G., Ajayi, O., Detlefsen, G., Place, F., & Torquebiau, E. (2013). Advancing agroforestry on the policy agenda: a guide for decision-makers. Agroforestry Working Paper, (1).
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Chilonda, P., & Minde, I. (2007). Agricultural growth trends in Southern Africa. Regional, Pretoria.
Chirwa, P. W., Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G., Syampungani, S., Kalaba, F. K., & Ajayi, O. C. (2008). Opportunity for conserving and utilizing agrobiodiversity through agroforestry in Southern Africa. Biodiversity, 9(1-2), 45-48.
Dollinger, J., & Jose, S. (2018). Agroforestry for soil health. Agroforest System, 213-219.
Drimie, S., & Casale, M. (2009). Multiple stressors in Southern Africa: the link between
HIV/AIDS, food insecurity, poverty and children's vulnerability now and in the future. Aids Care, 21(sup1), 28-33.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). Agroforestry. Retrieved on 2 March 2019, from http://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80338/en/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). Agroforestry provides practical solutions to global problems. Retrieved on 25 May 2019, from
http://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80339/en/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Retrieved on 3 April 2019, from
http://www.fao.org/3/i9553en/i9553en.pdf
FAO. (2018). Regional Africa overview of food security and nutrition. Retrieved on 3 April 2019, from http://www.fao.org/3/CA2710EN/ca2710en.pdf
Franzel, S., Cooper, P., & Denning, G. L. (2001). Scaling up the benefits of agroforestry research: lessons learned and research challenges. Development in practice, 11(4), 524-534.
Hartemink, A. E., & Huting, J. (2008). Land cover, extent, and properties of Arenosols in Southern Africa. Arid Land Research and Management.
Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforestry systems, 76(1), 1-10.
Kalaba, K. F., Chirwa, P., Syampungani, S., & Ajayi, C. O. (2010). Contribution of agroforestry to biodiversity and livelihoods improvement in rural communities of Southern African regions. In Tropical rainforests and agroforests under global change (pp. 461-476). Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Kendall, A., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo Jr, E. A. (1996). Relationship of hunger and food insecurity to food availability and consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96(10), 1019-1024.
Kwesiga, F., Akinnifesi, F. K., Mafongoya, P. L., McDermott, M. H., & Agumya, A. (2003). Agroforestry research and development in southern Africa during the 1990s: review and challenges ahead. Agroforestry systems, 59(3), 173-186.
Lang, T., & Barling, D. (2012). Food security and food sustainability: reformulating the debate. The Geographical Journal, 178(4), 313-326.
Mbow, C., Van Noordwijk, M., Luedeling, E., Neufeldt, H., Minang, P. A., & Kowero, G. (2014). Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 61-67.
Mbow, C., Van Noordwijk, M., Prabhu, R., & Simons, T. (2014). Knowledge gaps and research needs concerning agroforestry's contribution to sustainable development goals in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 162-170.
Merwin, M. L. (1997). The status, opportunities and needs for agroforestry in the United States: A national report. Columbia: Association For Temperate Agroforestry.
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Misselhorn, A. A. (2005). What drives food insecurity in southern Africa? A meta-analysis of household economy studies. Global environmental change, 15(1), 33-43.
Mwase, W., Sefasi, A., Njoloma, J., Nyoka, B. I., Manduwa, D., & Nyaika, J. (2015). Factors affecting adoption of agroforestry and evergreen agriculture in Southern Africa. Environment and Natural Resources Research, 5(2), 148.
Ommani, A. R. (2011). Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis for farming system businesses management: Case of wheat farmers of Shadervan District, Shoushtar Township, Iran. African journal of business management, 5(22), 9448-9454.
Pickton, D. W., & Wright, S. (1998). What's swot in strategic analysis?. Strategic change, 7(2), 101-109.
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., & Williams, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International journal of agricultural sustainability, 9(1), 5-24.
Rahman, S. (2018). Agroforestry: Why don’t farmers plant more trees? Retrieved on 12 May 2019 from: https://forestsnews.cifor.org/55549/agroforestry-why-dont-farmers-plant-more-trees?fnl=en
Raworth, K., (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience, 8(1), 1-26.
Renner, M., Seeney, S., Kubit, J., & Mastny, L. (2008). Green jobs. In Green Jobs: Working for People and the Environment (pp. 304-309). Routledge, New York.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W. L., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E., & Nykvist, B., (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and society.
Sanchez, P. A. (1995). Science in agroforestry. Agroforestry systems, 30(1-2), 5-55
Sileshi, G., Akinnifesi, F. K., Ajayi, O. C., Chakeredza, S., Kaonga, M., & Matakala, P. W. (2007). Contributions of agroforestry to ecosystem services in the Miombo eco-region of eastern and southern Africa. African journal of environmental science and technology, 1(4), 68-80.
Somarriba, E. (1992). Revisiting the past: an essay on agroforestry definition. Agroforestry systems, 19(3), 233-240.
Stainback, G. A., Masozera, M., Mukuralinda, A., & Dwivedi, P. (2012). Smallholder agroforestry in Rwanda: a SWOT-AHP analysis. Small-scale Forestry, 11(3), 285-300.
University of Texas.(2008). Southern Africa. Illustration. Retrieved on 12 May 2019 from
https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_world-regional-geography-people-places-and-globalization/s10-06-southern-africa.html
Van Rooyen, J. (2000). Regional food security and agricultural policy in Southern Africa: A challenge of policy conversion in diverse settings. Development Southern Africa, 17(1), 7-22.
Waldron, A., Garrity, D., Malhi, Y., Girardin, C., Miller, D. C., & Seddon, N. (2017). Agroforestry can enhance food security while meeting other sustainable development goals. Tropical
Conservation Science, 10.
Young, A. (1989). Agroforestry for soil conservation. UK: International Council for Research in Agroforestry. Retrieved from World Agroforestry.
Appendix A: Transcript Jessica Duncan
Our research is going about the potential role of agroforestry to increase food security in Southern Africa and we are going to focus on the current situation in Southern Africa regarding
