effectiveness of agroforestry research in colombia · enhancing the effectiveness of agroforestry...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Enhancing the effectiveness of agroforestry research
in Colombia
Review team
ICRAF: Fergus Sinclair, Philippe Vaast, Jason Donovan, Claudia Silva and Jenny Ordonez
CATIE: Eduardo Somarriba and Danilo Peso
Corpoica: Yasmin Cajas, Braulio Gutierrez, Carlos Castilla and Salvador Rojas
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) was contracted together with the Tropical Agricultural and
Higher Education Centre (CATIE) by CORPOICA (Corporación Colombiana de Investigación
Agropecuaria) to provide an external evaluation of agroforestry research in Colombia. The
objectives of the evaluation were to outline key achievements and gaps in agroforestry research in
the country and pinpoint strengths and weaknesses in research capacity.
The process
The evaluation involved three phases: a review of published articles and grey literature reporting
on agroforestry research; five regional evaluations comprising a visit by an international scientist
to see and discuss ongoing agroforestry research with CORPOICA staff and other institutions in
each natural region, including one or more workshop sessions with stakeholders; and finally a
national workshop at which the results of the evaluation were shared and discussed with
stakeholders. Overall the regional evaluations involved ten workshops across the country attended
by 123 people involved in agroforestry research and practice from a constellation of institutions.
The natural region evaluations were led by Fergus Sinclair (Caribbean), Philippe Vaast (Pacific) and
Jason Donovan (Orinoquia) from ICRAF and Eduardo Somarriba (Amazonia) and Danilo Pezo
(Andean) from CATIE. Yasmin Cajas from CORPOICA co‐ordinated the evaluations within Colombia
assisted by Claudia Silva of ICRAF, who also prepared the literature review. The evaluators were
assisted by many CORPOICA staff, including Braulio Gutierrez, Carlos Castilla and Salvador Rojas.
Drivers of change
The prospects for agroforestry in the country are conditioned by key drivers of land use, tree cover
and climate change. These include deforestation, progressive land degradation following
conversion from forest to pasture or exhaustion under agriculture as with cotton soils in the
Caribbean region, both of which result in biodiversity loss and a negative carbon balance. There
are also key problems with the regulation of water flow: too much in some places at some times,
leading to floods, while there are problems with seasonal drought in other contexts. Markets for
agricultural products are being conditioned by the free trade agreement with the US that leads to
Colombian farmers joining a very competitive continental market while the rising cost and
decreasing availability of labour, often coupled with a preponderance of absentee land ownership,
significantly affects how agriculture is practiced and the prospects for adoption of agroforestry
practices.
Research outputs
The overwhelming impression of the evaluation team was that there was a vibrant agroforestry
research community in the country but that the research effort was fragmented. In terms of the
historical publication record for the decade from 2000, CORPOICA produced from five to 35
articles about agroforestry per year but only a mean of one journal article per year, representing
1/60th of the Latin American canon. Knowledge transfer was mainly through presentations at
3
congresses rather than publication in peer reviewed journals, representing a missed opportunity
for harnessing the international scientific community to comment upon agroforestry research in
Colombia via the peer‐review process as well as denying researchers and farmers in other
countries the knowledge derived from the Colombian research experience.
Research activity
The number of agroforestry projects within CORPOICA varied markedly by region with a historic
preponderance in Amazonia, no longer sustained (only two projects since 2004 and no operational
CORPOICA station now in the natural region) and the Andean region, where activity continues to
amount to about a third of the agroforestry research projects in the country. At the time of the
evaluation there were no ongoing projects in the Pacific region and only two in the Amazon.
Thematically almost 40% of CORPOICA’s agroforestry research projects were on silvopasture, a
further third on integrating trees in mixed farming systems, 10% on integration with food crops
while timber, cocoa and rubber plantations collectively accounted for a further 15%, fruit trees 4%
and other non‐timber forest products a further 2%. Notably only 20% of projects involved social or
economic research. This analysis suggests that there is a clear opportunity to design research that
systematically covers variability in climate, soil and socio‐economic circumstances and can,
therefore, produce scalable results for the country as a whole, rather than site‐specific results of
only local relevance.
Knowledge generation and transfer
The predominant focus of agroforestry research activity in Colombia has been on the productivity
of agroforestry practices involving a few tree species and management options on farms and
research stations. This has demonstrated the feasibility of agroforestry in specific contexts.
Generally, experiments and trials have been researcher‐led, prescriptive rather than participatory
and not necessarily connected to a well‐defined value chain for products. There has been sporadic
rather than systematic coverage of variation in climate, soil and socio‐economic circumstances
constraining the scalability of results. Measurements in these trials have generally concentrated
on biophysical variables such as growth and yield with less emphasis on economic costs and
benefits or environmental impacts of trees on biodiversity, water regulation or long term soil
health. The emphasis has been on the empirical testing of a few best bet options rather than
mechanistic research approaches that might ascertain why particular practices work in particular
circumstances. The result is fragmented reports of performance of agroforestry options in
different contexts rather than synthesis across gradients of climate, soils and socio‐economic
circumstances. There were very few examples of rigorous quantification of impact, involving a
baseline with repeated measurements of productivity over the medium and long term and very
little assessment of other ecosystem services or socio‐economic impact. The site specificity of
much research has not generated easily scalable results that can be applied over a broad context
in the country by farmers, extension staff or policy makers. Research has rarely been well linked to
dissemination and there are opportunities for closer links between research providers and the
higher education sector.
4
5
Research capacity
Overall, the evaluators found an exciting constellation of institutions (CORPOICA, Universities and
NGOs) and individual researchers, who were active in agroforestry research and promotion. When
taken together, they represent a high research capacity in agroforestry but, competitive project
driven research has mitigated against collaboration amongst research providers or synthesis of
results across contexts. Notably, there are only a few social or economic researchers within
CORPOICA, all based centrally at headquarters rather than distributed amongst regions or districts.
There is an opportunity to capitalize on complementarity of expertise amongst research providers
in developing a forward research strategy.
Recommendations
Key recommendations for action to enhance the agroforestry research sector in Colombia are
suggested generally and then in relation to specific farming systems and natural regions.
1. Firstly, there is an overwhelming need to shift the balance from isolated project driven
research to a more strategic national research framework, aimed at understanding what
options, in terms of tree species and management, work where and for whom.
2. Funding structures need to be modified to promote collaboration rather than competition
amongst research providers so that appropriate partnerships can be forged to address
research priorities set out in a national strategy.
3. An incentive structure to evaluate and reward international peer reviewed publications
should be instituted, with a focus on citation as well as the number of articles published.
For some CORPOICA researchers assistance in converting manuscripts into English would
be appropriate and effective in the short term.
4. Research is required on a broader range of tree species, including native trees,
encompassing their propagation, as well as local knowledge about their utility,
management and impact on ecosystem services to ensure the maintenance of tree
diversity in agricultural landscapes that confer resilience and adaptability in relation to
climate variability and change.
5. There is scope for more research that explicitly responds to development needs and
product value chains outlined in more detail on p36.
Early actions required to address the first five recommendations could usefully include the
following.
6. Initiation of a series of critical systematic reviews to synthesize results from existing on‐
farm and on‐station research (see http://www.cebc.bangor.ac.uk/introSR.php for
methodology ). Priorities would be:
a. productivity of silvopastoral practices,
b. economic returns to farm timber, and
c. impacts of the expansion of growing the CCN51 cocoa clone
6
7. Development of a national strategy to ensure that research covers priority sites and socio‐
economic conditions where agroforestry is relevant. This requires a five step process:
a. Countrywide characterization of climate and soils (already largely available
nationally, but investment in collection of finer scale soils data using state of the
art soil health surveillance methods (http://www.africasoils.net/data/ldsf‐
description) and high throughput infra‐red spectroscopy
(http://www.africasoils.net/data/spectral‐diagnostics) would simultaneously
establish a baseline and refine understanding of present soil conditions nationally
b. Analysis of trends in vegetation production from back‐processed satellite imagery
and identification of degradation hotspots as priorities for agroforestry
intervention see for example:
(https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KXFMWJ5VjxAJ:www.fao.org/nr/
water/faonile/products/Docs/Manuals/Introduction_to_Image_Analysis_in_Arcvi
ew_3.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgU5WAl1V4L1uhzT7HDY2kKWlj_iArFUbk
liFkKq‐
cRPcsvb1xjWO3nSkzzHFKNlIBfnNuEqtFSJvQTZ2lddnHWoCxaXmqxCM5KVyKTXAY8
1DjzbjVZ‐MqcSxoLS8edOQRmRKJ1&sig=AHIEtbSTA6euRcKEp‐
wddAt5taM5vM1juQ)
c. Potential vegetation mapping to develop means to assess candidate indigenous
tree species for use in agroforestry practices in different parts of the country (see
http://ecodiv.org/trapnell/trapnell.html for an example of the methodology).
d. Farming systems characterization (this involves collation of data already nationally
and regionally available on farming systems, supplemented by baseline social and
economic survey) and institutional analysis of social capital amongst farmers and
market access.
e. Overlaying climate, soils, vegetation and farming systems information to produce
a typology of agroforestry potential and appropriate zoning to develop
appropriate agroforestry options for different areas.
8. Encourage and fund research explicitly at a range of scales to address plot, farm and
landscape issues as well as along the value chain.
9. Conduct systematic research on farmers’ local knowledge and experience of integrating
trees on farms within the country – stratified using insight from the characterization set
out in 7 above (see http://akt.bangor.ac.uk).
10. Complement existing empirical research trials on silvopastoral, silvoarable and multistrata
agroforestry practices with perennial tree‐crops with spacing and management trials that
systematically vary tree spacing and pruning (in relation to site conditions as defined in 7
above) to determine appropriate tree cover for different contexts. To maximize efficiency
the field research should be coupled with simulation modeling (using for example
WaNuLCAS ‐http://www.worldagroforestry.org/af2/Wanulcas) to develop understanding
not only of what works where, but why it works, enabling extrapolation and the creation
of baskets of alternative agroforestry options for farmers rather than single prescriptions.
7
Key requirements for capacity strengthening include
11. Enhanced capacity in social and economic research within CORPOICA, particularly by
increasing staff with these skills in regional offices or setting up collaboration with
universities or other research organization that house the relevant expertise.
12. Enhanced capacity in strategic research design, following the methodologies outlined in 7
above to include establishment of research protocols to ensure national comparability of
results.
13. Enhance capacity in meta analyses methods (see 6 above) and in the production of
scalable results that embrace variability and uncertainty
14. Enhance capacity to integrate empirical and mechanistic research approaches
15. Review and develop the University curricula in agroforestry nationally
Priorities for research on silvopastoral systems include:
16. Extending research to embrace a greater diversity of tree species, structure and function
(see 7c and 9 above) extending beyond plots to consider whole farm and landscape
approaches
17. Initiating research on impacts of tree shade on animal health and welfare and connect this
to market opportunities for sustainably produced meat and milk.
18. Initiating research to relate tree species, spacing and pruning options to direct measures
of milk and meat productivity, including specific attention to desirable proportions of
pasture diet supplementation.
Priorities for research on cocoa agroforestry sit within a context where the strategy in the cocoa
sector has been to target the high end international market. The evaluators caution against rapid
expansion of cocoa in the Pacific region for which there is some current enthusiasm because the
area faces limitations imposed by hydromorphic soils, high rainfall, high disease pressure and
problems with market access. Research priorities include:
19. Mapping areas to create ‘terroirs’ or geographic indications that differentiate the market
20. Initiate research on the impacts of expansion of the CCN51 clone (low quality but disease
resistant and highly productive) and explore means to reward farmers for premium quality
cocoa
21. Initiate networks of systematic site x cocoa genotype x shade x fertilizer treatments to
develop management recommendations
22. Quantify impacts of trees within cocoa farms on the environment, principally focusing on
soil quality, water regulation, carbon storage and the conservation of biodiversity
Priorities for research on rubber agroforestry sit within the context of a national strategy to
increase annual rubber production from around one thousand to 28 thousand dry tons for import
substitution but labour rates and availability may constrain this planned expansion in Orinoquia
and Amazonia and world price predictions are yet to factor in the huge expansion of the area
under rubber in China. Current research priorities include:
8
23. Initiating research on efficacy of pruning ‐ while intercropping rubber is common at the
beginning of the rotation trees are often topped at 6 m, mitigating against timber
production and later intercropping, alternative pruning scenarios require evaluation.
24. Underpin development of cocoa, plantain and rubber intercropping that is now being
promoted with obvious implications for pruning of the rubber that need urgent
quantification, longer term trials on spacing and management would also be merited.
There is huge scope to increase timber production from agricultural land in Colombia, both from
trees in pastures and from dedicated timber plantations. Much of the present timber planting is
driven by incentives of one form or another with very little hard data on economic returns from
different alternatives in terms of tree species and management options. Research priorities
include:
25. Economic assessment of returns to timber in silvopastoral and timber plantation scenarios
for a range of tree species using existing growth and productivity data coupled with
information about market accessibility
26. Species and provenance trials of native timber species in plantations and in pastures using
the characterization approach explained in 7 above to stratify sampling and select
appropriate species for sites, resulting in promotion of tree diversity in the timber sector
rather than monoculture.
These recommendations imply the need for a specific national agroforestry network organized by
CORPOICA that brings institutions together, rather than agroforestry appearing only in relation to
the production systems research agenda within which trees are integrated. Similarly, they imply
adoption of a participatory action research approach that brings farmers closer to research
coupled with the production of research outputs (agroforestry options) that are customised to
sites and farmer circumstances and, therefore, adoptable by farmers.
9
Table of Contents
1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 11
2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Review of past and current research ............................................................................... 11
2.2 Field assessment ............................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Feedback and validation .................................................................................................. 12
3. AGROFORESTRY CONTEXT IN COLOMBIA ................................................................................ 13
3.1 Analysis of actors involved ............................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 CORPOICA ................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.2 Other institutions ..................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Agroforestry in the state policy and education system .................................................. 17
3.2.1 State policy ............................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Education system ...................................................................................................... 18
4. REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION ON AGROFORESTRY RESEARCH .................................. 19
4.1 Systematic literature review ............................................................................................ 19
4.1.1 Evolution of the publications since 2000 to 2011 ................................................... 19
4.1.2 Publications according to natural regions ............................................................... 21
4.1.3 Publications according to the production system ................................................... 21
4.2 Survey results .................................................................................................................... 22
4.2.1 Participants and institutions .................................................................................... 22
4.2.2 Quantity and quality of AF research ........................................................................ 25
4.2.3 AF Adoption .............................................................................................................. 27
5. REVIEW OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD ..................................................................... 27
5.1 Analysis of research according to the production systems ............................................. 27
5.1.1 Cocoa agroforestry ................................................................................................... 27
5.1.2 Rubber agroforestry ................................................................................................. 28
10
5.1.3 Silvopastoral systems ............................................................................................... 29
5.1.4 Agrosilvopastoral systems ........................................................................................ 31
5.1.5 Fruit trees and food crops ........................................................................................ 31
5.2 Analysis of research according to the natural regions .................................................... 32
5.2.1 Andes ............................................................................................................................ 32
5.2.2 Pacific ........................................................................................................................ 32
5.2.3 Orinoco ...................................................................................................................... 33
5.2.4 Amazonian ................................................................................................................ 34
5.2.5 Caribbean .................................................................................................................. 34
5.3 Feedback and validation .................................................................................................. 35
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 36
6.1 General conclusions .............................................................................................................. 36
6.2 General recommendations ................................................................................................... 36
6.2.1 General directions for future research on socio‐economic aspects of AF systems ........ 37
6.2.2 General directions for future research on biophysical aspects of AF systems ............... 38
6.2.3 Specific recommendations per production system ......................................................... 39
6.2.4 Recommendations on research methods and protocols ................................................ 40
6.2.5 Recommendations on institutional capacity building and effective knowledge sharing
40
11
1. BACKGROUND
Colombian agriculture has been increasingly focusing on developing integrated agricultural
systems with particular interest on agroforestry (AF). The inherent complexity of AF systems
involve a series of challenges regarding linkages among a number of actors, a more complex
knowledge process in research, and expectations from the social, institutional and political levels
that need to be addressed. In 2011, an agreement between CORPOICA and ICRAF took place with
the aim of strengthening relationships between these institutions and finding ways to improve
scientific capacities while embracing the complexity of this research area.
A team of senior scientists from ICRAF and CATIE analyzed the agroforestry research status in the
five natural regions of the country: the Andes, Amazonian, Caribbean, Orinoco basin and the
Pacific, with their corresponding production systems. A first assessment was done through visits to
CORPOICA’s regional research centers, on‐farm trials, meetings and workshops with relevant
stakeholders and a systematic review of the published literature and projects of the past eleven
years (2000‐2011). A second stage consisted on the validation of the primary results in nine
regional workshops and one national workshop, where the findings were discussed and the
feedback incorporated in the final report.
Although the report was prepared within a national context, including consideration of local
expertise, ongoing research by other organizations and the key achievements and gaps in
agroforestry research, the subject focus was CORPOICA, its strengths and weaknesses on
agroforestry research, capacity strengthening needs and partnership opportunities necessary to
fulfill its role as the main government institution devoted to increase and improve production in
rural areas.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Review of past and current research
An analysis of the state of the art of Colombian agroforestry was done through a systematic
review of published literature in agroforestry from 2000 to the present. In a first stage, articles
dealing with this subject were identified through computerized search of databases such as ISI
Web of Knowledge, CAB abstracts, ISI web of science and Google scholar. In addition to the
electronic searches, non‐electronic publications from the library of CORPOICA’s headquarters
were reviewed and experts on the subject around the country were contacted to identify other
possible sources of information and provide unpublished data and grey literature.
A review was also conducted to identify key institutions active in agroforestry, research groups
working with this subject and projects being done in the country. Agroforestry projects carried out
by CORPOICA were identified through the intranet webpage of the institution, which has a
digitalized copy of the projects since 2004. Important aspects of the state policy and education
were reviewed and summarized in order to have a holistic view of the factors influencing
agroforestry research and development.
12
A survey was conducted (see Annex 1) to include perspectives of a range of stakeholders about the
credibility of institutions working in agroforestry, quality and availability of research outputs, the
level of adoption of outputs by farmers, gaps in knowledge and support needs required for
agroforestry research to have a greater impact. The survey was completed by 123 key informants
who participated in ten regional workshops.
2.2 Field assessment
In November 2011, field visits to the five natural regions were made by the consulting team in
order to have an on‐site view of the producer’s reality and research station and on‐farm research
trials. The visits were organized by staff from CORPOICA and consisted of visits to key farmers,
CORPOICA’s facilities, and meetings with relevant stakeholders (regional government institutions,
federations and cooperatives and NGOs). The consulting team included five experts in different
disciplines of agroforestry who reviewed a natural region with a view also to particular production
systems relevant to their expertise. An consultant was contracted by ICRAF for the systematic
literature review and compilation of the individual reports. A description of the consulting team
and the natural regions analyzed by them is shown in Table 1..
Table 1: Consulting team and their respective institutions, natural regions and visit dates in 2011.
Name Institution Expertise Natural region Visits date
Fergus Sinclair, Phd ICRAF Production ecology Caribbean Dec 5‐16th
Eduardo Somarriba, Phd CATIE Cocoa agroforestry Amazonian‐Andean Dec 2‐15th
Philippe Vaast, Phd ICRAF Perennial crops Pacific Nov 5‐13th
Jason Donovan, Phd ICRAF Agriculture economics Orinoco basin Dec 5‐9th
Danilo Pezo, Phd CATIE Silvopastoral systems Andean Dec 2‐15th
Claudia Silva, MSc ICRAF Agroforestry Systematic review Nov 2‐Dec 20th
2.3 Feedback and validation
Opinions and points of view from local actors involved in Colombian agroforestry were taken into
account through regional workshops were field observations from the consultants were discussed
and analyzed, and new topics were developed and considered. In total, nine regional workshops
were conducted covering a wide geographical swath of the country (Figure 1), four in the Andean
region, two in the Amazonian region and one each in the Pacific, Caribbean and Orinoco basin
regions. A total of 123 participants attended the workshops.
13
Figure 1: Geographical coverage of the regional workshops (red dots) conducted in Colombia
A national workshop was conducted on December 16th, 2011, in the Sheraton Hotel, Bogota. In
this meeting, five presentations from the team members covering the main points analyzed in the
consultancy were presented:
Highlights of global research in agroforestry (Fergus Sinclair, Phd– ICRAF)
Agroforestry network in Central America (Rolando Cerda, MSc – CATIE)
Essential aspects of cocoa and rubber agroforestry (Eduardo Somarriba, Phd – CATIE)
Systematic review of agroforestry research in Colombia (Claudia Silva, MSc – ICRAF)
Recommendations for future agroforestry research nationally in Colombia (Fergus Sinclair,
Phd – ICRAF)
Two group discussions where the participants at the national workshop evaluated the
presentations focusing on a) incentives and difficulties to create agroforestry alliances in Colombia
and b) the preliminary findings about agroforestry research, provided important feedback for the
conclusions and recommendations arrived at in this report.
3. AGROFORESTRY CONTEXT IN COLOMBIA
3.1 Analysis of actors involved
3.1.1 CORPOICA
14
CORPOICA, a public entity of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, is in charge of
generating knowledge and solutions for the agricultural sector. It has six research centers (four in
the Andean region, one in the Caribbean and one in the Orinoco basin), seven experimental
stations (three in the Andean region, two in the Caribbean, one in the Orinoco basin and one in
the Pacific) and a biotechnology and bio‐industry center in the Cundinamarca department
(Andean region). The institution used to have an experimental station in the Amazonian region,
but it was transferred to UNIAMAZONIA in 2006.
The organization of research in CORPOICA is managed by two networks: the network of research
by products and the network of knowledge.
Network of products includes Agro‐biodiversity; Agro‐energy; Permanent crops; Fruit trees;
Transitional crops; Vegetables; Tuber and roots; Pastures and forage; Livestock and minor species.
Network of knowledge includes Plant breeding; Ecophysiology; Plant protection and diseases;
Conservation and management of soil and water; Agroindustry; Climate change; Genetics and
animal breeding; Animal feed and nutrition and Animal health.
In 1999 a “Research and technological development plan on agroforestry systems” was created in
CORPOICA in order to improve competitiveness and sustainability of the rural sector through the
implementation, design and development of more adequate agroforestry systems for the local
conditions.
As part of the plan, the “Agro‐ecological and land use conflict zoning study” reported the existence
of nearly 20 million ha of land with some agroforestry use as shown in Table 2 (IGAC‐CORPOICA,
2002).
Table 2. Predominant agroforestry uses at the national level and their contribution to the total
agroforestry area and total area for pastures and agricultural land
System Predominant use Area (ha) % of total area agroforestry
% of total area pastures
% of total area agriculture
Trees and shrubs in pastures 3,001,155 14.9 7.2
Silvopastoril Pastures with relict forest.Extensive grazing, fuelwood, fiber and fruits for household consumption
13,767,786 68.2 33.0
Subtotal 16,786,941 83.1 40.2
Intercropping: traditional semestral agriculture and other covers
2,816,704 14.0 48.0
Agro‐ Intercropping: coffee, 599,068 3.0 10.2
15
silviculture plantain, fruit trees, pasture and forest relicts
Subtotal 3,415,772 16.9 58.2
National Total area agroforestry 20,184,713 100.0
Estimates
Total area agriculture 5,873,920
Total area pastures 41,699,796
*Modified from: Agroecological and land use conflict zoning study” (IGAC‐CORPOICA, 2002), scale 1:500,000.
Currently, work is being done in IGAC to reduce the scale at 1:100,000.
The study also identifies other 21 million ha with potential to be used as agroforestry (defined as
land unable to be exclusively used for agriculture or grazing).In terms of agroforestry systems, 51%
of the 21 million ha is represented by land with agro‐silvicultural potential, especially for
permanent crops, 18% for silvopastures and 31% for agrosilvopastures as the main potential uses.
Every project done by CORPOICA’s research staff goes into a database on their intranet webpage,
which has all the documents of the projects and a general description of the location of the study,
natural region, main and secondary researches, amounts granted and used, etc. This information is
only available for the staff involved in the project and the head of the planning department, and is
not for the public knowledge or the rest of CORPOICA’s staff (researches or not). Table 3 shows
CORPOICA’s agroforestry projects since 2004 (both finished and ongoing) per natural region and
production system.
Table 3. CORPOICA’s agroforestry projects since 2004 per natural region and productions system.
The geographical distribution of projects is uneven among the natural regions, with the Caribbean
and Andean region representing together more than 80% of the projects and the Pacific region
with no project at all. Regarding production systems, the predominance goes to silvopastoral
projects, which represents 40% of the projects. Other production systems such as cocoa, rubber,
fruit trees and food crops, receive more attention in specific disciplinary contexts (e.g. genetics)
but are not always seen as part of an agroforestry system.
Nowadays, CORPOICA is working in the “Social construction of the agenda for research,
development and innovation of the agricultural sector” which comes as a response of the “Bases
Count of Projects Natural region
Production System Amazonian Andean Caribbean Orinoco basin Grand Total
agrosilviculture 1 2 3
cocoa plantations 5 2 7
food crops 2 3 5
fruit trees 1 1 1 3
rubber plantations 1 1 1 1 4
silvopastoral 4 7 5 16
timber plantations 3 3
Grand Total 2 13 19 7 41
16
of the National Development plan 2010‐2014” where the deficiencies and problems of this sector
were depicted. In order to improve the deficiencies, the government has decided to increase
investment in R&D, implement an effective coordination of the SNCTA (National System of
Agricultural Science and Technology), and put CORPOICA as the main institution responsible for
the agricultural R&D Sector, while being the manager or operator of the innovation agendas of the
Ministry of Agriculture
3.1.2 Other institutions
‐ A government entity, COLCIENCIAS (the Colombian Science, Technology and Innovation
Administrative Department), has among its functions the task of coordinating the National
System of Science, Technology and Innovation (SNCTI) which has an online platform where
all the research groups have to register, specifying their home institution, program, region
and field of knowledge. Out of 300 groups registered in the field of agricultural science, 20
are currently doing research in agroforestry (shown in Annex 2). Nonetheless, the focus of
the research groups on AF is somewhat uneven, with some of the groups putting 100% of
their efforts to AF science while others are just beginning in this field. CORPOICA has four
groups in this category, representing over 20% of these research groups.
‐ The SNCTA (National System of Agricultural Science and Technology) is a newly developed
information system in charge of supporting all the logistics of the Social Agenda in
Agriculture and livestock Research. It will have information of all the actors involved, the
state of the art of agriculture research, advances in research, identification of results and
technological offers available, elements to determine demands on research, networks and
human resources. Tools of SNCTA: Capacities capture; networks capture; technological
offer of research projects; innovation and technology systems; and demand capture.
‐ The Ministry of Environment has 33 CAR’s (Autonomous Regional Corporations)
distributed within the country, which are the main environmental authority at the regional
level, and some of them are doing extension or research on agroforestry systems.
‐ An institute from the Ministry of Agriculture, IGAC (Geographical Institute Agustin Codazzi)
has the cartography for the land use conflicts, soils, and cover for Colombia at a 1:100.000
scale, all available from their webpage. The IDEAM (Hydrology, meteorology and
environmental studies institute), from the Ministry of Environment, has maps with
environmental and hydrological data.
‐ ICA (Agriculture Colombian Institute) is in charge of contributing to the sustainability of
the agricultural sector through research, transfer of technology and prevention of sanitary
risks of plants and animals.
17
‐ Alexander von Humboldt Institute is in charge of biological resources research and is
dedicated to promote, coordinate and carry out research contributing to the conservation
and sustainable use of resources.
‐ CIPAV (Center for research on sustainable agricultural systems) is an NGO who has an
agroforestry network and projects on silvopastoral management, ecosystem services
payment and management of natural regeneration in animal husbandry under
agroforestry systems.
‐ SINCHI (Amazonian Institute of Scientific Research) is bound to the Ministry of
Environment, has some agroforestry research and produces the magazine “Revista
Colombiana Amazonica” and manages the “Siat‐ac” (Environmental information system
for the Colombian Amazon)
‐ Some of the Federations working with agriculture are doing research and giving attention
to agroforestry, including FEDECACAO (coca), FEDECAFE (coffee) and FEDEGAN (livestock),
but there is potential for other federations (rubber, crops, plantain, etc) to have a more
active role in agroforestry.
3.2 Agroforestry in the state policy and education system
3.2.1 State policy
Since 2004, Colombia has been promoting policies to improve the competitiveness of the different
productive sectors and encouraging national capacities for technological development. Some of
these policies are:
‐ Internal agenda for productivity and competitiveness (2004)
‐ National system of competitiveness – SNC – (2006)
‐ National Policy for competitiveness – PNC – (2008)
‐ Law of science and technology ‐ law 1286 – (2009)
‐ Agendas of research and technological development of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development (since 2006)
Among the agendas of research, agroforestry aspects are covered in the agendas of cocoa, rubber,
forestry, and livestock; but there is no agenda of agroforestry as such, since it is not part of the
network of products or knowledge.
The Ministry of Agriculture has the “Policy for environmentally sustainable agricultural
development”, which has as part of its subprograms the need for research and implementation of
agroforestry arrangements and the strengthening of silvopastoral and agrosilviculture proposals
for land recovery.
18
The “National Forestry Plan” in 2000, recognized agroforestry as a viable option for the
establishment of trees on farms and in pastures and as a way to enhance the cash flow and
income of farmers.
This year the “National program of commercial reforestation” was created (article 66 of the law
1450 of 2011). The program aims to take advantage of the potentials of the country in this matter,
broaden the product offer, and contribute to recovery of land and water bodies. As part of this
program, work is being done to: a) create a forestry service within the Ministry of Agriculture, b)
empower CORPOICA in the aspects of plant protection, accountability of products from
commercial plantations and agroforestry systems and c) empower CONIF which is part of the
government forestry institutions. The program has a budget of approximately 50 million USD for
2012 and 220 million USD expected for 2014. The next step of this program is to strengthen and
unify the existing laws and norms regarding forest plantations and agroforestry. In accordance
with this aim, the Ministry of Agriculture recently presented a “Forestry Law Project” to regulate
the establishment and use of forest plantations and agroforestry systems with commercial or
industrial purposes, which is awaiting approval. This law intends to modify the current forestry
incentive (CIF), making it more accessible and gives an economic incentive, for one time, to do
investments in new forests plantations and/or agroforestry systems.
At the regional level, the provincial governments also have agricultural policies (for example the
“Agricultural Policy of the Boyacá Department 2011‐2032”), which are coordinated by the
secretaries of agriculture. These policies may or may not have agroforestry included in the plans
depending on the agroforestry knowledge of the provincial government staff (e.g in the Boyacá
document there are some references to agrosilvocultural systems as a way to achieve sustainable
land management).
3.2.2 Education system
Currently, four Colombian Universities are offering an undergraduate degree of Agroforestry
Engineer (Universidad Técnologica del Choco, Universidad de Nariño, UNITROPICO and
Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia ) and although prominent Colombian Universities, such
as Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Universidad de Tolima, Universidad del Cauca and
Universidad Javieriana don’t have full degrees on agroforestry, they do have courses or lectures
included in related degrees and are active in agroforestry research. Technical courses in
agroforestry are also offered by many institutions such as FITEC and SENA (National Learning
Service).
Regarding postgraduate studies, two MSc courses in Agroforestry are being offered. An alliance
between CORPOICA and UDCA (Universidad de Ciencias Ambientales y Aplicadas) formed an MSc
in Tropical Agroforestry two years ago and the first generation of 10 students is about to graduate.
The other master degree is offered by the University of Amazonia (UNIAMAZONIA) and even
though it was created four years ago, no student has obtained the degree until now.
19
Sixteen Colombian Universities form part of the “RAUC” (Agroforestry network of Colombian
Universities) which was one of the organizers of the “III International Agroforestry Seminar” held
in Ibague, Colombia on September 2011. In this meeting, a creation of an agroforestry magazine
was agreed; the editor is Universidad de Tolima; the magazine name is “Agroforesteria
Neotropical”; and the first number appeared in September 2011, with four scientific articles, one
technical report and a summary of the seminar.
4. REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION ON AGROFORESTRY RESEARCH
4.1 Systematic literature review
4.1.1 Evolution of the publications since 2000 to 2011
In order to describe the productivity of agroforestry research at national level, all records from the
retrieved literature in the form of articles in technical and peer‐review journals, books, technical
reports, congress papers and undergraduate and postgraduate thesis were included in a database.
The evolution of the whole database during this eleven year period has been irregular, with peaks
of production in 2000 and 2010 (Figure 2). The 2010 peak can be explained by the “VI International
Congress in Agroforestry for Livestock Production” held in Panama, where Colombia was
represented with 25 congress papers and the 2000 peak is explained by a series of technical guides
of the “Forestry and agroforestry technology transfer program “ published by CONIF through the
program UMATAS. Technical reports (technical articles, books and theses) represented 80% of the
more than 250 published articles during this period, followed by congress papers with 15% and
peer‐review articles with 5% respectively. However, thesis and other grey literature from the
research institutions might be under represented because of their low online availability.
20
Figure 2. Number of published agroforestry articles in Colombia from 2000 until present
Regarding language, less than 8% of the whole literature can be found in English, almost
exclusively in peer‐reviewed journals, with the most popular being Agroforestry Systems, Livestock
Research for Rural Development, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, and Forest Ecology
and Management. The low number of peer‐review articles found in the last decade for
agroforestry in Colombia is notable, representing less than 1/60 of the peer‐reviewed agroforestry
articles published in Latin America as a whole for the same time period.
Out of the Spanish journals, Agroforesteria en las Americas (published by CATIE) is the most
popular among Colombian researches, with 10 articles published in the eleven year time span. On
the other hand, nearly three quarters of the articles were published in national media (Table 4).
Table 4.Most representative Colombian journals publishing agroforestry research
Colombian Magazine Institution
PasturasTropicales CIAT
RevistaCorpoica CORPOICA
Revista Innovación y cambio tecnológico CORPOICA
Investigaciones de Unisarc Corporación Universitaria Santa Rosa De Cabal
Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias Universidad de Antioquia
Revista Ingenierías & Amazonia Universidad de la Amazonia
Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas Universidad de Nariño
Acta agronómica Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Agronomía colombiana Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales
Universidad pedagógica y tecnológica de Colombia
Revista sistemas de producción agroecológicos Universidad de lo Llanos
21
In these magazines, the articles are written normally in Spanish, with some exceptions for English
and Portuguese. The electronic availability differs between the institutions, with CIAT’s journal
completely available, CORPOICA’s journals partially available and some of the Universities journals
with only partial availability.
4.1.2 Publications according to natural regions
Given the biological and socio economic differences present in the five natural regions, research
productivity was also evaluated for these separate regions (Figure 3). Since several articles could
not be pinned down to a specific region a “general” category was added, including titles such as
“Integrated systems: the experience of CIPAV in Colombia” or “The fodder acacia in
agrosilvopastoral systems” from CORPOICA.
Figure 3. Number of agroforestry research articles per natural region
Is noticeable how the Amazonian region has one of the highest productivities regarding
publications with only two projects conducted by CORPOICA and no CORPOICA research station
there since 2006, while, in contrast, the Caribbean has 19 projects and few publications. This could
be explained by the presence of other actors and the higher interest by the international
community on the Amazon ecosystem.
4.1.3 Publications according to production system
CORPOICA’s research with trees and agroforestry focuses especially on the following systems:
silvopasture, fruit trees, cocoa plantations, rubber plantations, timber plantations, non timber
forest products and food crops (such as cassava, maize, beans, plantain and upland rice).
Consequently, the entire literature database was categorized according to these production
systems. Again, a more general category had to be added in order to represent more wide‐ranging
and conceptual articles which are embodied as agrosilvicultural systems (Figure 4). Although
coffee agroforestry and oil palm are broadly covered in CORPOICA´s research, they are not in the
scope of this review since they are the responsibility of other organisations nationally within
Colombia.
10%
29%
9%
27%
4%22%
Natural Region
Caribbean
Andean
Orinoco basin
Amazonian
pacific
general
22
Figure 4. Agroforestry research in Colombia according to production system
From all the literature published on these systems, it is interesting to see that 80% is entirely of a
technical basis while only20% has elements of social, economic or political research (e.g. local or
indigenous knowledge studies, cost‐benefit analysis, participatory approaches and so on). This
number is even lower in CORPOICA’s research, were only 12% has some of these elements.
4.2 Survey results
4.2.1 Participants and institutions
Nine workshops were conducted in the five natural regions, comprising a vast geographical area
and 123 participants from different government institutions, universities, and farmers’
organizations (Figure 5). General classifications were made in order to characterize all the
institutions represented by the participants (Table 5).
23
Figure 5.Regional workshop participants.
Table 5. Institutions represented according to their typo of organization
Type of organization Participant institution
Government National level: CONIF, the Humboldt Institute, Colciencias
Regional level: SINCHI in the Amazonia and the different CAR’s found among the regions
CORPOICA Even though CORPOICA is part of the government, it was analyzed separately for the purposes of this
work
Civil unions FEDECACAO, FEDEGAN, ASOHECA or ACAMAFRUT
Private actors Small, medium or large enterprises as PROCAUCHO, CHOCAGUAN
Cocoacompanies: Casa Luker, Compañia Nacional de Cacao
Universities Different Universities
NGO’s Mainly represented by research centers as CIPAV and CIAT.
The participants were asked about the institutions that they consider to play an important role
regarding agroforestry research in their region and at the national level; which international
institution they consider to be relevant for agroforestry in Colombia and which of all the above
24
should take a more active role in research. The following Figure (6) shows the results from the 123
people who participated.
Figure 6: Participants view on the relevance in agroforestry research of the different institutions
At the regional level, Universities seem to be the institution with a more active role in agroforestry
research (mentioned 35% of the times), but they lose some ground at the national level to
institutions such as CORPOICA and NGOs that have representation all over the country. For the
case of the government, the main institutions mentioned were SINCHI, CONIF and the Ministry of
Agriculture and Environment. Although CARs and CORPOICA are part of the government, they
were considered apart to highlight their relevance attributed by their high number of mentions.
The international institution most recognized regarding agroforestry research was CATIE, with a
large number of CORPOICA’s and Universities’ staff choosing it to accomplish postgraduate
studies. The World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) is the second most recognized followed by
EMBRAPA (Brazil) and other international centers with less than 5%.
The government, through its ministries of Environment and Agriculture, was considered the
institution that needs to start taking a more active role in research, mainly through monetary
25
support and policies to promote partnerships and long term studies. Universities and CORPOICA
followed in this category, demonstrating a good self‐criticism since together they account for
more than half of the participants.
4.2.2 Quantity and quality of AF research
Participants were asked about the natural region that they felt was more excluded from efforts on
agroforestry research. The results in Figure 7, showed that Amazonian is the region highlighted
with the highest perception of being left out (25%). The other regions seem to be slightly better
attended since all had a similar perception with values ranging between 14‐18%. Only 9% thought
that all regions lacked attention. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution as the
number of participants per region was not even (Annex 3), and there was a tendency among
participants to vote for the region they were coming from.
Figure 7: Region more excluded from agroforestry research efforts
Perceptions on the availability of technical research for farmers and advisors was highly negative,
with a 73% of participants considering it bad, 13% medium and 12% good, with no significant
variations among the different natural regions (as shown in Figure 8). Figure 8 also shows the
perceptions about the quality of agroforestry in the education system, in this case 40% of the
participants regard agroforestry education as of bad quality, 40% of medium quality and 20% of
good quality. The pacific region was the one with the highest percentage of favorable opinions
about education; it was also the workshop with the highest number of participants coming from
universities, showing therefore a good commitment in this matter.
26
Figure 8: Research accessibility and education quality perceptions according to different regions
Colombian magazines in agricultural and environmental subjects were evaluated in the survey
according to their relevance to agroforestry (Table 6), with CORPOICA’s magazine having the
highest frequency (22%). Several comments were made about the need to have a specialized
magazine or journal for agroforestry, since one of the accessibility problems to research studies is
the scarcity of them. The analysis for this report coincided with the publication of the first number
(November, 2011) of the magazine “Agroforesteria neotropical” created by the RAUC
(Agroforestry network of Colombian Universities) and edited by the University of Tolima. Due to
it’s recently edition this magazine was not part of the survey.
Table 6: Colombian magazines relevant for agroforestry research
Colombian Magazine votes %
Pasturas Tropicales47 16
Revista Corpoica65 22
Revista Innovación y cambio técnologico14 5
Investigaciones de Unisarc8 3
Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias41 14
Revista Ingenierías & Amazonia 14 5
Revista de Ciencias Agricolas24 8
Acta agronomica 38 13
Agronomia colombiana26 9
Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas,
Físicas y Naturales 14 5
Total 291 100
27
4.2.3 AF Adoption
Over 95% of the workshop participants believe that there is a large gap between agroforestry
research and adoption by farmers and when asked about the possible solutions for a higher
adoption rate, responses were related to:
‐ Extension strategies (35%): Issues mentioned were the need of better dissemination
materials on AF advantages, not only to farmers but also at the political level; improved
technical assistance; professionalized extension officers; improved communication
channels at different levels and development and implementation, monitoring and
evaluation schemes
‐ State policies (28%): Development of economic incentives (especially for the first stage of
implementation); improvement to the agroforestry education system; creation of more
resources for research and promotion of networks on the subject.
‐ Information (17%): Fill information gaps essential for sound agroforestry, such as research
on interaction among different components, economic advantages of the systems,
diversification of tree species suitable for farming economies and on socio‐cultural aspects
needed to improve adoption.
‐ Alliances (11%): Integration of different institutions; creation of networks and compilation
of the information in an accessible way
‐ Farmers integration to research (9%): On‐farm trials; application of participatory
approaches and more applied research.
5. REVIEW OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD
5.1 Analysis of research according to the production systems
5.1.1 Cocoa agroforestry
Cocoa is cultivated on 100,000 ha in Colombia and there seems to be a willingness from the
Colombian cocoa sector to promote the development of this crop. The national annual production
is around 40 000 tons and the major Colombian companies, such as Compañia Nacional de
Chocolates and Casa Luker, currently need to import cocoa. The national demand for cocoa, plus
the government supports, and the unstable prices of meat and milk, have created an increasing
interest from farmers to start planting this crop.
The focus on agroforestry research in cocoa has been on the productive performance of mixtures
of promising cocoa clones planted in alleys between single or double rows of native and exotic
timber species or between single or double rows of promising rubber genotypes. The width of the
28
alley (12‐14 m) as well as the spacing of timber or rubber trees (within and between rows) has
been manipulated within narrow ranges and planted in both farmers’ fields and research stations.
Around 95% of cocoa plantations are under various levels of shade. The shade canopy is properly
managed in only 25% of the area, 50% of the cocoa is overshaded, and 20% is undershaded
(mostly in young and recently established cocoa). The spatial distribution of tree cover in the plots
is irregular, with patches of excessive shade and areas with little or no‐shade in the same plot
(Gildardo Palencia, Head National Cocoa Program, CORPOICA, 2011, personal communication).
Regarding shade trees, a limited number of species are being used in combination with cocoa,
including abarco (Cariniana pyriformis), teak (Tectona grandis), cedro (Cedrela odorata), rubber
(Hevea brasiliensis), Tabebuia spp., mahogany (Swiettenia macrophylla), nogalcafetero (Cordia
alliodora) and Cordia gerascanthus. Great attention is being given to the use of abarco, a native
Amazonian species, well adapted to local soils, acceptable growth in tree height and stem
diameter, produces a dense and highly appreciated lumber as well as edible nuts (this species is a
member of Lecythidaceae family, and thus a close relative to the highly appreciated brazil nut,
Bertholletia excelsa).
Non‐governmental organizations and regional and national organizations (excluding CORPOICA)
have introduced CCN51, a highly productive Ecuadorian clone to farmers’ plantations. This clone
is highly appreciated by farmers (because it produces high yields and is resistant to pests and
diseases) but feared by the cocoa industry because of its lower organoleptic quality as compared
to the current Trinitario hybrid populations used in commercial plantations. The expansion of the
CCN51 clone all over the country is an important issue given the national strategy of targeting
gourmet, high quality chocolate markets for Colombian cocoa.
5.1.2 Rubber agroforestry
Agroforestry research with rubber is also conducted by both CORPOICA and other institutions in
various natural regions of Colombia. Research has focused on: the evaluation of promising rubber
clones (Brazilian, Colombian and Indonesian) planted in single or double rows intercropped with
short term crops (maize, soybean, Phaseolus beans, etc.); temporary taungya associations aimed
at generating early income (tapping for rubber latex occurs only after the trees are >35 cm in girth
and between 5‐8 years of age) and controlling weeds in the young rubber and thus stimulating
tree growth.
Efforts have also concentrated in the active promotion of rubber – cocoa – plantain agroforestry
systems in all rubber producing areas. The plantain provides temporary shade for the young cocoa
and generates early income until the cocoa and then the rubber start producing beans and latex,
respectively. Various alley widths and rubber spacing (both within and between rows) have been
planted in farmers’ fields and research stations. CORPOICA researchers have started
experimenting with different pruning models for rubber in these multiple cropping systems.
Current commercial practice in Colombia is to de‐crown (topping) the young rubber at 5‐6 m
height to produce a tree with a single, clean, short bole for tapping and a wide, closed canopy at
29
low height to stimulate girth grown and to speed up canopy closure for controlling weeds and
reducing management costs. New pruning concepts for rubber‐cocoa agroforestry involve de‐
crowning at >10 m height or not pruning at all to produce a longer tree bole useful for lumber.
Raising the crown of the rubber tree is also meant to reduce shade levels over cocoa, facilitates air
circulation and helps to reduce disease pressure on cocoa (monilia and witches broom).
Most rubber‐cocoa plantations are young (<10 years) and there is high degree of uncertainty of
the performance of the system at older ages when rubber trees are fully developed and
competitive interactions with the cocoa or any other crop planted in the alleys between rows of
rubber will be at their maxima.
5.1.3 Silvopastoral systems
Considering the striking differences between the silvopastoral systems practiced at higher ( > 1800
m.a.s.l.) and intermediate elevations ( 600 – 1600 m.a.s.l.), predominantly with specialized dairy in
the highlands and dual‐purpose cattle systems in the intermediate sub‐regions, the analysis was
done separately.
Silvopastoral systems at higher elevation
The specialized dairy systems practiced at higher elevations in the Andean region are based on
European cattle breeds, grazing in intensively managed pastures dominated by either kikuyu grass
(Pennisetum clandestinum) or ryegrass (Lolium spp.), which are frequently and heavy fertilized
when associations of grass with white and red clover (main herbaceous legumes) are not used.
Usually the rotational grazing involves a 45‐60 days resting period, as pastures grow less rapidly
than in warmer climates. Several tree species have been traditionally planted in boundary fences
or as windbreaks, but researchers from different institutions have promoted the introduction of
multi‐purpose trees in internal fences and even in compact blocks. Among the tree species
traditionally used were Pinuspatula, Cupressus lusitanica and Eucalyptus globulus, whereas the
new species promoted by researchers are Alnus acuminata, Acacia decurrens and Acacia
malanoxillum. In the case of the fodder trees and shrubs the species promoted are Tithonia
diversifolia, Sambucus nigra and Trichantera gigantea.
Although it was suggested to incorporate trees inside the paddocks, most farmers did not like such
silvopastoral arrangements. For instance some farmers accepted the introduction of fodder trees
and shrubs for browsing, but planted in lines between paddock divisions because they (specially
smallholders) were concerned with the reduction of usable land for pastures when trees were
introduced in the paddocks. Only few farmers have adopted fodder bank systems for cut and
carry. Crop‐pasture rotations are practiced, especially with potatoes, as a mean to rehabilitate
degraded pastures and prevent virus problems in long term potato production.
Silvopastoral systems at intermediate elevations
The dual‐purpose cattle systems practiced by farmers in the intermediate elevations of the
Andean region are based on crossbred animals (European x Zebu breeds). Animals graze either
30
native, naturalized or improved pastures with tropical grasses. Fertilization is practiced by few
farmers, but rotational grazing with intervals varying between 25‐35 days is common. Milk
production per cow varies between 3‐6 kg/day, although some farms which supplement with
commercial concentrates could produce a little more. Some tree species have been traditionally
present in farms, either as live fences or scattered trees in pastures. Some improved silvopastoral
systems such as alley farming with Leucaena spp. and tropical grasses with scattered timber and
fruit trees planted in between have been implemented. The introduction of pastures in tree
plantations of valuable timber (add here too the examples of valuable timber) and fruit (citrus,
mangoes) is a new proposal by researchers, but at the time we visited the zone none of these
systems were already under management with animals.
There is a wide diversity of native species in the farms, either in fences, as scattered trees and in
secondary forest areas within the farms, but also some introduced species have been planted.
Among the tree species found are: Pithecellobium saman, Cassia fistula, Acacia mangium, Prosopis
juliflora, Acacia mangium, Tectona grandis, Gmelina arborea, Cordia alliodora, Mangifera indica,
Spondias purpureus, and Citrus sinensis among others. Among the fodder trees are Leucaena
leucocephala, Gliricidia sepium, Guazuma ulmifolia, Moringa oleifera, and Cratylia argentea.
In the Orinoco region, where ranching and cattle farming is part of the culture of the society,
research has focused on few fast growing tree species, including yopo (Anadenanthera peregrina)
and acacia (Acacia mangium) as the most used in silvopastures, that had been proved successful
for the conditions of the region. The adoption of silvopastoral systems has been based mainly in
arrangements of live fences (which have economic advantages by reducing costs of fencing in
order to protect the tree in the early years) and trees in clusters. In the field visits it was clear that
the farmers perceive benefits of having trees, such as increase value of the land (aesthetic value),
increase meat and milk production due to an improved welfare of the animal, opportunity to have
(and therefore to be able to cross) more demanding breeds and lower soil losses in the field.
Research on soil management trough fertilizers and improved grass species, pasture management
by rotation methods and protein and fodder banks, had also been an important part of the
research focus in this region.
Extensive survey of pastures in the Caribbean region a decade ago (Cajas and Sinclair, 2004)
revealed extensive use of native tree cover on pastures, including key fruiting species contributing
to dry season cattle diets. A number of contemporary farmers were adopting whole farm
approaches to enhancing tree cover, selecting different species for different productive and
environmentally protective niches on their farms. Following demonstration of multistrata
silvopastures by CORPOICA at their Turipana station (involving mixtures of leafy shrubs, arboreal
fruit trees and emergent timber species) and extensive promotion of the same with carbon
financing, quite a few farmers have adopted intensive tree cover on their farms and are benefiting
from the dry season contribution to diet. CIPAV also have a number of trials in the region, often
with very high density planting of fodder shrubs that shade out the pasture. Some trials are
financed through farmers taking out loans, and are associated with following very tight
prescriptions for tree density that have not yet been thoroughly tested. There is an urgent need
31
for research on optimum shrub density and management practices. While farmers were often
motivated by timber value of trees, there was virtually no information on economic returns to
timber grown in pastures. Despite farmers citing tree shade as important for animal productivity
and welfare there was no scientific validation of these effects or understanding of threshold levels
of shade that promote productivity.
5.1.4 Agrosilvopastoral systems
Some very intensive systems that involve integration of trees, pastures and crops have been
promoted. Research emphasis has been principally focusing on 1) introducing leguminous tree
species in the production systems; and 2) assessing the right arrangement and management of
these leguminous trees in association with crops and pastures. This is particularly true for agro‐
silvo‐pastoral with perennial crop systems and much less for food crop systems. As far as we could
see during our rapid field appraisal, very integrated and highly sophisticated agro‐silvo‐pastoral
systems with combinations of legume trees (upper and intermediate strata), biannual food crops
and improved pastures have been successfully tested by farmers in collaboration with research
institutions and organizations, particularly CIPAV. More importantly, these innovative agroforestry
systems seem to be implemented mostly by farmers with medium to large farm sizes, via an
efficient transfer of technologies under the leadership of the Colombian Cattlemen Federation
(FEDEGÁN: FederaciónColombiana de Ganaderos) with documentation produced by CIPAV and
other institutions. It is worth mentioning that very impressive efforts have been undertaken to
optimize these associations (in terms of quantity and quality of livestock feed) and to make
efficient use of manure and wastes or by‐products (via biogas, fishpond, lombri‐culture). This
constitutes an impressive achievement towards “ecological intensification” with “conventional‐
intensive” farms being transformed into more environmentally friendly ones,which have a
reduced dependence on agro‐chemicals and external inputs for livestock and/or dairy production
and maintain/restore soil fertility.
5.1.5 Fruit trees and food crops
Food crops are generally found in home‐gardens, which are characterized by relatively small sizes,
co‐existence of a large variety of food crops and fruit trees and low‐intensity management regime
(labor and inputs). Production of food crops is commonly practiced under slash and mulch”
systems where farmers invest a lot of labor into plot preparation to produce extensively a variety
of crops during a short period (2‐3 years) before soil fertility declines. Afterwards, plots are
brought back to natural regeneration of trees and shrubs during a fallow period of 10‐30 years.
In the Pacific region, there are some farms specialized in the production of “borojo” (Borojoa
patinoi) and “mangosteen” (Garcinia mangostana) in orchards, with intensive management and
high inputs (especially herbicide), on‐farm fruit packaging and commercialization in cities (Cali and
Bogota). This commercial farming enterprise does not appear as a model that can be widely
replicated in the Pacific region because of shortage of labor in the zone and lack of capital of small
farmers.
32
5.2 Analysis of research according to the natural regions
5.2.1 Andes
The Andean region covers a vast area of 305,000 km2, located between the three mountain ranges
present in Colombia, and includes two mayor inter‐Andean valleys of the Magdalena and Cauca
rivers. Seventy percent of the Colombian population (34 million inhabitants) lives in the Andean
region, which contains the most important economic and urban centers, the main water
resources, as well as the most productive agricultural land. This region has a wide diversity of
climates, as determined by elevation changes. More than 80% of the coffee plantations are in this
region, not only in the “EjeCafetero” (Caldas, Rirasalda and Quindío), but in other provinces
(Antioquia, Tolima, Cundimarca and Northern Santander as well). This report focus on the
information gathered only in the three departments (Antioquia, Tolima and Cundinamarca)
covered by the present mission. It must be indicated that most agroforestry systems visited are
silvopastoral, and the majority of participants in the consultations had a bias on such type of
systems; therefore most of the comments are related to those systems.
The main technical aspects of specialized dairy systems practiced in the higher elevations of the
Andean region have been described in detail in the silvopastoral systems at higher elevation
(above) Smallholder farmers in the region are usually not organized. Therefore, they have limited
access to markets, information and are less able to negotiate either for buying inputs or for selling
their products. Given that many medium and large farm owners do not depend of the farm for
living, they are not interested on technology change and their presence in the farms is infrequent.
Several farmers prefer traditional ways of production and are not prepared (or willing) to manage
more complex system like agroforestry or silvopastures. The initiative led by the Colombian
Federation of Livestock Producers (FEDEGAN with the supported by GEF and the World Bank to
promote sustainable livestock production systems through a payment for environmental services
scheme, is an exception to this pattern. This initiative is promoting the adoption of different
silvopastoral options in five areas of Colombia.
5.2.2 Pacific
In the Pacific region there is a huge contrast in terms of livelihoods between farmers. Highland
farmers have medium to large farms and are specialized in “livestock” and “sugarcane”, and
appear to be in far better conditions than small farmers in the intermediate to lowland areas,
where the main agricultural technique is “slash and burn”. Medium to large farmers in the
highlands have enough financial capital to progressively transform their farms into more
environmentally friendly ones, as illustrated in the work lead by FEDEGAN and CIPAV in
agrosilvopastoral systems (above). Over the last 10‐20 years, small farmers in highlands have also
been the focus of extension programs trying to promote sustainable farm management via
schemes developed by various regional governmental institutions and NGOs. In the watershed of
the Felidia river, a key area for water provision to Cali and buffer zone of the National Park “Los
Farallones”, farm visits and discussions with local stakeholders seem to indicate very low success
33
of such extension schemes. Lack of financial incentives was the main reason given by farmers for
the low success in this rural community. Certainly more in‐depth analyses are worth undertaking,
including cost/benefit analysis of farm conversion from conventional to more sustainable and
environmentally friendly ones.
Livelihoods of indigenous communities in the lowlands are certainly among the poorest ones in
Colombia. Subsistence of many families is based on agriculture practiced on soils characterized by
low fertility and shallow root zone due to high water table and anaerobic conditions at the peak of
the rainy season. There seems to be a willingness from the Colombian cocoa sector to promote
the development of local cocoa production, which to some extent is matched by an increasing
interest from farmers to plant cocoa in the lowland areas of the Pacific zone. From discussions
with researchers of Corpoica and various Universities (del Choco, Nariño, Cauca, Tolima, del
Pacífico, acional/Palmira), it appears that cocoa based agroforestry systems are also being
promoted and developed in the other lowland areas of the Pacific. Still to fully develop cocoa
based agroforestry systems it is necessary to address limitations in terms of soil fertility, soil water
saturation and a very humid environment (conducive to the widespread development of fungal
diseases sucha as Monilia and Witches’ broom). Particularly for the later, that is aggravated by the
apparent lack of resistant materials
5.2.3 Orinoco
The Orinoco basin is the second biggest natural region of Colombia (after Amazonia), and the sub
regions it comprises differ greatly not only in geographical and ecological attributes, but also in
culture, land tenure and type of farmer present. The piedmont sub‐region has better soil
conditions than the “llanos”, where mainly small farmer‐subsistence agriculture is practiced with
production systems that focuses primarily on food crops with sparse trees and fruits. The “llanos”
sub‐region has more difficult soil conditions where a more extensive agriculture with strong
emphasis on livestock is practiced in large farms run by hired labor, as the owner is absent. Due to
these differences the agroforestry research done in this region has focused on two main systems:
silvopastoral systems for the llanos, where the research has focused on four fast growing tree
species that had been proved successful for the conditions of the region and cocoa agroforestry
for the piedmont, which is becoming exponentially more important due to the instability and low
prices of meat
Research should continue to contemplate how to increase productivity of milk and meat, which
faces problems for lack of machinery and infrastructure, low carrying capacity (normally 1 UA/ha,
rarely 2,5 UA/ha) and the risks visage by unstable (and low) prices for meat and milk. Efforts are
also needed in the diversification of crops and alternative tree species (e.g. also for fruit
production), to lower risks and enhance livelihood conditions. Extension efforts on amplifying the
number of farmers using silvopastoral systems while improving and formalize the farmer’s
knowledge on costs and benefits of having trees in their farms should also be a priority.
Besides improving the portfolio of production options for farmers, research should also focus on
how to improve market conditions. Currently the market does not differentiate prices according to
34
product quality, resulting in no incentive to invest time and resources on the processing and
adding value of the products. Market chain and production research is also important due to low
selling prices attributable to the off take by traders and to the low negotiation power of farmers.
The use of marketing cooperatives by farmers is in the process of consolidation but not completely
active yet. Another challenge is on how to counteract the high production costs of inputs and
labor, as a result of hydrocarbon enterprises captivating former farm workers.
An opportunity in this region is the access to alternative funding of international agencies and the
private sector, which can be seen in the agreement with ECOPETROL (Colombian petroleum
company) to fund silvopastoral systems for farmers in their vicinity and agroforestry systems as a
way to use water associated with hydrocarbon plants.
5.2.4 Amazonian
A limited number of tree species are being used in combination with cocoa, including abarco
(Cariniana pyriformis), Teak (Tectona grandis), cedro (Cedrela odorata), rubber (Hevea
brasiliensis), Tabebuia spp., mahogany (Swiettenia macrophylla),nogalcafetero (Cordia alliodora)
and Cordia gerascanthus. Great attentions is being given to the use of abarco, a native Amazonian
species, well adapted to local soils, acceptable growth in tree height and stem diameter, produces
a dense and highly appreciated lumber as well as edible nuts (this species is a member of
Lecythidaceae family, and thus a close relative to the highly appreciated brazil nut, Bertholletia
excelsa). Despite the great interest on abarco, very little information is available on the growth,
canopy development and other key aspects of the physiology and plant architecture of this species
5.2.5 Caribbean
The Caribbean region is dominated by pasture and is a major cattle producing area of the country
– the major agroforestry interest is, therefore, to integrate trees on pastures or to grow timber in
plantations. CORPOICA have been active in research and promotion of multistrata silvopastoral
systems in the region for over a decade and documented local knowledge and practice associated
with utilising trees on pastures, while CIPAV have promoted a range of silvopastoral options,
mainly based on fodder shrubs but sometimes also involving integration of fast growing timber
species as described under silvopatoral systems above. Somewhat surprisingly, Eucalyptus spp. are
being promoted for integration on pastures by some researchers despite their water use while
naturally regenerated timber species such as Samanea saman, are common in fields together with
fruit bearing trees such as Guazuma ulmifolia and Cresentia cujete. Popular trees for plantation
timber include Tababuia rosea and Pachira quinata with farmers often grazing even dense stands
before canopy closure. There is scant information on optimum tree and shrub density to
supplement cattle diets with the balance between shrub and pasture growth in seasonally dry
environments not well understood. Similarly information on economic returns from planting
timber trees on pastures either while maintaining grazing or with dedicated timber plantations
was virtually non‐existent. Not much natural regeneration was evident in dense fodder shrub
plantings that were rotationally grazed. At the CORPOICA research station in Montilonia growth of
Eucalyptus with and without azobactor and rhizobium inoculum was being monitored together
35
with sequence plantations with Leucaena lucocephala and Pachira quinata. They also had well
designed trials of Crescentia cujete, Leucaena leucocephala and Guazumo ulmifolia alone and in
mixtures.
While some farms benefited from a whole farm approach to tree planting, farmer managed
natural regeneration and tree utilization and management, many other farms were owned by
absentee landlords who did not make sufficient management investment to build natural capital
on their farms and others were constrained by lack of availability and the high price of farm
labour. Often farm hands and managers were very knowledgeable about tree resources on the
farm and their utilisation. Vast areas of degraded cotton soils appear to have the potential for
rehabilitation using fertiser tree species – we saw a very successful example of this at Hans
Duvaal’s farm Los Companos.
5.3 Feedback and validation
After presenting the main findings and field assessment, a participatory process of validation of
the primary results was conducted through group discussions and further presentations of the key
aspects resulted from this. The focus of the discussions was first on opportunities to strengthening
alliances and secondly on agreements and disagreements related to the findings.
Regarding alliances, the workshop participants agreed that the government should promote
partnerships by emphasizing the need for having interdisciplinary teams when calls for research
and development projects are announced. Research and development platforms could be
organized around different systems relevant for each region. University lecturers and researchers
insisted that the evaluation systems need to be revised. For instance, the current system does not
facilitate the participation of researchers of different disciplines in a given research project
because all researchers are penalized when more than three authors publish a given paper.
Most of the problems and findings were considered accurate according to the participants,
especially on the need for more socioeconomic studies and the need to have a more strategic than
project‐driven approach. They also agreed on the need of better monitoring and evaluation
schemes for follow up and support systems to improve quantity and quality of publications. Some
disagreement was found on the special focus given to trees in silvopastoral contexts, without
further considering problems with lack of grass species or animal breeds and the need to have
more trained extension workers that could facilitate that service to research institutions.
Discussion also diverted to some common problems considered relevant by the participants, such
as the small number of tree species being used in AF systems, AF designs that are site‐specific and
not replicated in the most relevant biophysical and socioeconomic conditions, thus limiting
understanding of the agro‐ecological functioning of the systems and the extrapolation of
technologies and results to other areas, research design has been driven by researchers and is
short term due to the nature of the funding sources. This model limits the adoption by farmers
once the funding is finished and prevents the possibility of sound analyses on the long term
performance of the agroforestry systems being promoted. Adoption problems are also related to
36
aspects such as unavailable information (does not reach farmers); weak or null economic
incentives; few programs considering participatory approaches; relatively few options on products
and systems; lack of clear policies and the need to demonstrate the profitability of systems before
they are promoted.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General conclusions
‐ Efforts in agroforestry research and diffusion have been consistently carried out for the
past two decades, resulting in a large amount of information, covering all natural regions
and mostly concentrating on production systems and practices. Problems of the published
research relates to fragmentation, low accessibility to farmers and the absence of a
medium to long term strategy. Research is mainly published in technical journals or
technical reports and it is not reaching the scientific community for validation and rigorous
scrutiny of peer scientists. Support to scaling up at this level in quantity and quality is
needed.
‐ There is willingness at the political level to strengthen the role of agroforestry as an option
for sustainable production in the rural areas, but more efforts are needed regarding
financial compensations and promotion of interdisciplinary groups for research. A new
scheme is needed for allocating research funds that shifts the balance from project driven
to strategic research co‐implemented by relevant institutions with different expertise and
capacities and responds to a national strategy and plan accepted by all stakeholders. The
main objective of this scheme should be to promote cooperation (rather than
competition) among complementary organizations and to promote bottom‐up
participatory approaches where farmers (as final users) get involved in the definition of
the research efforts.
‐ There is a strong research bias for biophysical aspects, but aspects such as development of
markets, funding sources to initiate enterprises and clear analysis of the economic and
social feasibility of AF systems have not been studied in depth, which might be
undermining adoption of technologies developed.
6.2 General recommendations
Considering the current state of agroforestry research and diffusion, the main recommendation of
this report would be to develop a national strategy with clear objectives for the research in the
short‐medium and long term, and a clear definition of channels to secure diffusion of information
to the different stakeholders. This strategy will direct research efforts that integrate technical and
37
socio‐economic aspects of AF systems in Colombia and utilize novel methods and protocols that
ensure the participation of all stakeholders.
The specific recommendations for socio economic, technical, methodological and institutional
aspects that deserve attention within this research strategy are developed in detail in the
following sections.
6.2.1 Directions for future research on socio‐economic aspects of AFS
Research should focus on better understanding the opportunities for improving the market
conditions for actors involved in the production, processing and selling of AF products and
services. For example, smallholder cocoa producers in the Orinoco region face a market that does
not recognize quality (e.g. cocoa) with higher prices, which results in reduced incentives to invest
time and resources in improving quality. Key areas of research include: collective enterprise
development, value chain development, conditions for a more enabling business environment,
and supply of (and access to) technical, business development and financial services.
One area of research that has received limited attention in Colombia and elsewhere is the linkage
between AFS and poverty reduction. How do AFS help the rural poor to build productive assets
and to reduce their vulnerability to external shocks? Insights into this question will help
governments and development organizations to better design and target their interventions. The
linkage between rural poverty and market‐related development interviews is the focus of
intensive collaboration between ICRAF, CATIE, CIP (International Potato Center), and others. One
result of this collaboration is “5Captials: A toolkit for assessing the poverty impacts of value chain
development”. For information on 5 Capitals and potential collaboration contact Jason Donovan
([email protected]) or Dietmar Stoian ([email protected]).
Assessment of the economic feasibility of different agroforestry and silvopastoral systems is
critical to increase adoption processes by farmers and support from the political level, this should
consider the investments required for implementing technology innovations, the net internal
return rate, the time required to recover investments and commercial opportunities at national
and international levels. Cost/benefit analyses, value chain studies and market opportunities for
fruits and non‐timber products should also be undertaken. Another challenge is on how to
counteract the high production costs of inputs and labor, which is becoming a problem in several
parts of the country.
Local and indigenous knowledge on the multiple potential uses of native tree and shrub species
needs to be included in the design of agroforestry systems and portfolios of potential tree
agroforestry species, to facilitate the identification of constraints for adoption and adaptation of
these systems.
38
There is a need for options to strengthen the entrepreneurial capacity of farmers through
cooperatives and other types of organizations, with emphasis on improved commercialization
channels and negotiation power.
6.2.2 General directions for future research on biophysical aspects of AF systems
Research needs to focus on evaluation of interactions (ecological mechanisms and processes)
between system components: trees‐animals or trees‐pastures/crops under different silvopastoral
and agroforestry practices. This information is required to identify opportunities for intervention
(i.e. enhance positive interactions and minimize negative interactions). Developing of modeling
approaches is necessary to assess the performance of successful developments of sustainable
systems in specific locations under diverse ecological conditions and hence generalize results over
recommendation domains.
Promoting tree diversity is a key requirement and the options regarding tree species that farmers
can use in their farms needs to be expanded. Emphasis should be given to constructing growth
curves of valuable tree species for representative site conditions in Colombia and to select and
test more tree species (native and exotic) for use as shade and timber production on farms.
Candidate species may include achapo (Cedrela gacatenaeformis, Callophyllums pruceanum,
Cabraleam canjerana, Centrolobium ochroxylum, Virola spp., Carapa guianensis, Chonta (Iriartea
exhoriza), among others. Suitability of species to sites would benefit from intial characterization
and vegetation mapping as described in Section 7 of the Executive Summary.
Post‐harvest methodologies and options for processing primary products should be taken into
account by the institutional strategies for increasing productivity (focus beyond primary
production).
Evaluation of the potential of agroforestry and silvopastoral systems on the role of adaptation of
vulnerable species to climate change, deforestation and degradation of their natural ecosystems
and the development or adaptation of models to simulate performance of agroforestry systems
under different scenarios is also recommended.
Regarding “slash & mulch” systems, management improvements are worth undertaking to
improve soil fertility and to maximize labor inputs by extending the cultivation period and limiting
their expansion into “protected areas”. Soil fertility studies should focus on pinpointing the main
key soil nutrient deficiencies and proposing improved agroforestry systems with the inclusion of
legume trees and shrubs in “slash & mulch” systems. In home‐gardens, main improvements should
include 1) to introduce “grafted” fruit trees for household consumption and 2) to enhance soil
fertility through better use of household waste and by‐products (compost, lombriculture, etc).
39
6.2.3 Specific recommendations per production system
Cocoa and Rubber
For the case of cocoa, it is recommended the design of strategies and evaluation of the costs and
impacts of converting current traditional shaded cocoa systems (with mixed composition of tree
species, irregular spatial distribution of shade over cocoa, etc.) into technically managed,
sustainably high yielding systems with planted shade in systematic planting spatial arrangements
for different levels of technology applied in the cultivation cycle.
Maintain high cocoa quality in Colombia through: 1) a thorough examination of the potential
impact of the expansion of CCN51 on the quality of Colombian cocoa; sound measures must be
designed and implemented to avoid mixing and marketing CCN51 with Trinitario cocoa; 2) the
collection of native Amazonian cocoa in the Caquetá and Putumayo river basins and its inclusion in
current agroforestry designs is suggested given the interest of specialty markets in exotic, flavorful
cocoa beans; 3) a national cocoa quality atlas for Colombia separating areas (terroirs) with
particular flavor profiles should be elaborated as a basis for market differentiation; and 4) design
and implement long term experiments exploring the most promising genotype x ”site” x
management (e.g. fertilization) designs and evaluate their impacts on cocoa quality.
In order to improve financial and productive performance, and farmers’ adoption of rubber
agroforestry, changing the pruning height and changing tree form to enable its use as lumber is a
promising innovation that deserves more research in terms of agroforestry management.
Fertilizers are regularly used in rubber but are rarely used in cocoa and consequently we need to
understand how farmers will react and adopt this innovation. Studies clearly show the positive
response of cocoa yields, tree growth and financial benefits to fertilization. However, this has to
be shown to farmers if we want to change their attitude towards adopting the use of fertilizers in
cocoa production.
Silvopastoral systems
Research should focus on how to reduce production costs to make specialized dairy production
more competitive, particularly given entry into free trade agreements. The inclusion of fodder
trees and shrubs could help to reduce the use of commercial concentrates, but more importantly,
to change current use of high protein concentrates (ca. 18% crude protein) by cheaper ones with
high energy and low protein content (ca. 13% crude protein).
Research on environmental services (i.e.water economy, soil fertility, biodiversity) and the carbon
footprint need to be assessed for different silvopastoral systems, to take advantage of CDM (clean
development mechanism) opportunities and its likely succesors. For instance incorporation of
trees in dairy systems might be an opportunity to sequester C that offsets GHG emissions from the
cattle. Some efforts to measure those effects have been initiated, but need to be continued and
deepened.
40
6.2.4 Recommendations on research methods and protocols
Empirical research should be complemented with long term mechanistic action‐research to
understand the interactions (intra and inter‐specific) between components of the systems,
therefore modeling of system component interactions within plots and farms and modeling of
landscape impacts of agroforestry practices on environmental services production (e.g. to analyze
trade‐offs) could help propel awareness in the society and at the political level.
Use of meta‐analysis of existing agroforestry experiences in both farmers’ fields and research
stations to study response of agroforestry systems to biophysical and/or socioeconomic gradients
included in existing field trials and farm plots.
An inter‐institutional advisory or consultative group (for technical support) could be formed with
related institutions in order to give more validity and weight to the projects designed and assists
on the elaboration of international peer‐review publications.
An elaboration of an institutional program and a methodology to evaluate and monitor impacts
and outputs of projects and programs is of high importance. More efforts are needed to record
quantitative measures of productivity, financial performance and of positive and negative
interactions between associated crops. It is necessary to replicate the most promising planting
configurations in the range of biophysical and socioeconomic conditions representative of each
region.
6.2.5 Recommendations for CORPOICA on institutional capacity building and effective
knowledge sharing
Strengthening capacity
Provide educational and training opportunities on agroforestry modeling, data analysis and
improve the proficiency in reading, writing and oral communication of researchers in the English
language to: increase access to up to date scientific information; support research and education
and promote production of scientific, peer‐reviewed articles in international journals.
CORPOICA has to identify the systems for which it has comparative advantages to concentrate
efforts and promote partnerships with relevant stakeholders. Also, CORPOICA has to consider the
main challenges and opportunities for agroforestry research: targeting poverty alleviation, food
security and mitigation of climate change effects. Moreover, because some of the beneficial
effects of agroforestry systems go beyond the farm it is needed to analyze these impacts at the
landscape level, especially considering the impacts on soil, water and biodiversity conservation. In
this context partnerships with other institutions would be needed.
This consultation has identified a big gap between technology generation and adoption and
adaptation of agroforestry technologies by farmers. Therefore, it is recommended that CORPOICA
strengthens its capacity for the application of action‐research approaches (especially for its work
41
with smallholders) and establishes strong partnerships with the UMATAs and local farmers’
organizations.
In order to improve CORPOICA’s political position and be better able to gain support from donors
and partners, it is recommended to redefine and update the institutional mission to reflect the
more complex scenarios and objectives that the institution has to deal with (e.g. collaborate on
poverty reduction, improve rural livelihoods, etc). The direction the institution has been taking,
and the changes it wants to make, should be reflected on the public image and corporate vision of
the institution.
Partnership opportunities
CORPOICA could propel a learning alliance at the regional and national level with related
institutions and the creation of an agroforestry network within the institutions programs. Since no
institution could have all the know‐how needed for interdisciplinary agroforestry research,
alliances with institutions stronger in social and economic sciences should be sought.
Alliances with the private sector should seek to comprise more than funds for primary production,
moreover, they should be a catalyst to improve commercialization and advance in aspects of the
chain production processes.
Internationally, CORPOICA could benefit from more intense partnerships with international
research institutions such as ICRAF, CIAT, CATIE, and CIRAD through collaborative research
projects.
Effective knowledge exchange
In addition to current output of technical and grey literature (internal reports, theses, extension
materials, etc.) a greater emphasis is needed to stimulate Colombian researchers to publish in
English, in scientific peer‐reviewed journals to ensure a rigorous scrutiny of the agroforestry
science in Colombia.
Information must be made accessible to all (national and international) interested users via web
and internet platforms. New information and communication technologies should be
mainstreamed and used to communicate cheaply and quickly with farmers and other
stakeholders. Attention should be put on having different suites of agroforestry options for
different farmers and different households, taking into account their agroecological, social and
economic differences. Adoption responses might improve by customising information and its
format to suit clients.
There is a need to produce policy briefs and public awareness articles, which could help to gain the
support of decision makers and increase the sensitization of the general public on the contribution
of agroforestry options to the environment, food security and the livelihoods of the rural
population. Television and radio programs could be used as vehicles for sharing relevant
information to farmers and the general public.
42
43
ANNEXES
Annex 1. Survey on agroforestry research and extension needs
Date of interview
Interviewer
Interviewee
No Question Response
1Name the institutions you consider more relevant
in agroforestry research for:
a) your natural region
b) Nationwide
c) International
2Which institutions you consider should take a
more active rol in agroforestry research?
3
How do you see the quality of agroforestry
education in Colombia? What are the strengths
and weekneses?
4What is your opinion on the availability of the
research for the different stakeholders?
Agroforestry research survey
44
5
What is your opinion on the level of adoption of
agroforestry practices by the rural population,
how can this be improved?
6
Do you considere that there is a gap between the
advances in agroforestry research and
agroforestry adoption?
7Give your opinion on the level or status of
agroforestry extension in the country
8
What technical, social, economical or political
elements do you consider are absent or deficient
in the existing research?
9Importance you give to interdisciplinary research
and the means to foster it in the national context
10
What is the natural region you consider to be
more excluded and in more need of agroforestry
research and extension?
45
11
What approach should the institutions working
with agroforestry employ to gain more political
support?
12
On which agroforestry system do you plan to do
your next research project or investigation?
(silvopastoral, agrosilviculture, cocoa, rubber,
fruit trees,NTFP's, timber pantations or food
crops)
13
What type of publication was generated from
your last agroforestry research project? (journal
article, technical report, thesis, other, none)
14
Of the following Colombian magazines and
journals, Which one do you think has the greater
impact on agroforestry research?
a) Pasturas Tropicales
b) Revista Corpoica
c) Revista Innovación y cambio técnologico
d) Investigaciones de Unisarc
e) Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias
f) Revista Ingenierías & Amazonia
g) Revista de Ciencias Agricolas
h) Acta agronomica
i) Agronomia colombiana
j)
Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias
Exactas, Físicas y Naturales
23 Any other relevant comment
46
Annex 2. Agroforestry research groups in COLCIENCIAS
Agroforestry research groups Institution Location
AgroforesteriaUniversidad de ciencias
ambientales y aplicadasCundinamarca
Agroforesteria y biodiversidad tropicalUniversidad de ciencias
ambientales y aplicadasCundinamarca
Agroforesteria y recursos naturales Universidad De Nariño Nariño
Centro de Investigacion y Desarrollo
Tecnologico en Sistemas Agroforestales,
Silvopastoriles y Especies de Economia
Campesina
CORPOICA Santander
Ciencia Animal y Recursos AgroforestalesUniversidad Tecnológica Del
ChocoChoco
GAIA ‐ Agroecosistemas y Conservación en
Bosques AmazónicosUniversidad De La Amazonía Caqueta
Gestión en Agroecosistemas Tropicales
Andinos
Universidad Tecnológica De
PereiraRisaralda
GISAPA‐ Grupo de investigación en
sistemas agroforestales pecuarios
amazonicos
Universidad De La Amazonía Caqueta
Grupo de Investigación en Agroecología y
Desarrollo Rural GIADERUniversidad De La Amazonía Caqueta
Grupo de investigación en sistemas
agroforestales pecuariosUniversidad Del Tolima Tolima
Pastos y forrajes tropicales CORPOICA Meta
PROPROBOSUniversidad Distrital "Francisco
José De Caldas" Bogota
REVERDECER CORPOICA Cordoba
Sistemas Agropecuarios Sostenibles CORPOICA Cesar
Sistemas Integrados de Producción
Agropecuaria, Forestal y Acuícola
(SISINPRO)
Universidad del Cauca Cauca
Sistemas ProductivosUniversidad Tecnológica Del
ChocoChoco
Sistemas productivos sostenibles SINCHI Guavire
Sistemas Sostenibles de Producción
Agrícola
Corporación Universitaria Santa
Rosa De CabalRisaralda
Sostenibilidad CENICAFE Caldas
Investigación en Agroforesteria Universidad de los Llanos Villavicencio
47
Annex 3. Regional workshop participants
N° Workshop location Name Institution type of institution
1 villavicencio Oscar Cerinza CORPOICA CORPOICA
2 villavicencio Fernando Garcia CORPOICA CORPOICA
3 villavicencio Guillermo bueno CORPOICA CORPOICA
4 villavicencio Otoniel Perez CORPOICA CORPOICA
5 villavicencio Albert Gutierrez CORPOICA CORPOICA
6 villavicencio Victor Montaña Unitropico University
7 villavicencio Nelson Polanco CORPOICA CORPOICA
8 villavicencio Oscar Pardo CORPOICA CORPOICA
9 santander Milagro Escobar CDMB Government
10 santander Luis Echeverria Refocal private actor
11 santander Pedro Sanchez FEDECAFE civil union
12 santander Fabio Aranzaza FEDECACAO civil union
13 santander Edison Vargas APROCASUR civil union
14 santander Hernan Hernandez PROCAUCHO private actor
15 santander Eduardo Bermudez PROCAUCHO private actor
16 santander Nelson Ardila Comañia Nacional de chocolate private actor
17 santander Jose Camero agroecologista private actor
18 santander Luis Estupinan Universidad Santo Tomas University
19 santander Dennis Angorsita Coperativa ecoccacao civil union
20 mocoa leone Ceballos CORPOAMAZONIA Government
21 mocoa Luis Fernando CORPOAMAZONIA Government
22 mocoa Carlos Jimenez Azamblaz private actor
23 mocoa Jhon Deybi territorio‐bio NGO
24 mocoa Roberto Aguirre SENA Government
25 mocoa Noa Solaite CORPOAMAZONIA Government
26 mocoa Jorge Reyes CORPOAMAZONIA Government
27 caquetá Carlos Escobar particular private actor
28 caquetá Diego Ferney SICNHI Government
29 caquetá Alexander Palacio ACAMAFRUT civil union
30 caquetá Jean Gamboa UNIAMAZONIA University
31 caquetá Julio Barnal Comité ganaderos civil union
32 caquetá Cesar guenora ACAMAFRUT civil union
33 caquetá Ismael Duran ASOMECA civil union
34 caquetá Luis Mayano ACAMAFRUT civil union
35 caquetá Jose Ramirez UNIAMAZONIA University
36 caquetá Carlos Hernandez Asociación campesina civil union
37 caquetá Carlos Fernandez SENA Government
38 Cali Luis Londoño Velez Universidad del cauca University
39 Cali Luz Amalia Forero Universidad de Tolima University
40 Cali Robert Tulio Gonzalez Universidad del Pacífico University
41 Cali J. Villalba Universidad del cauca University
42 Cali Jorge Fernando Navia Universidad de Nariño University
43 Cali Sonia Ospina CIPAV NGO
44 Cali E. Pera CORPOICA CORPOICA
45 Cali U. Sechebs Universidad de Tolima University
46 Cali Luis Jaime Paz Comité de ganaderos de Cauca civil union
47 Cali R. Malagon Universidad Nacional sede Palmira University
48 Cali Catalina Garcia Universidad del cauca University
49 Cali Hugo Martinez Higuera Universidad de Tolima University
50 Cali Roman Ospina Universidad del cauca University
51 Cali Sandra Morales Universidad del cauca University
52 Cali Nelson Vivas Universidad del cauca University
53 Cali Adriana Lucia Danzo Universidad de Tolima University
54 Cali Samuel Advincula Mondragon Universidad de Tolima University
55 Cali F. Hernandez Universidad de Tolima University
56 Cali Gloria Ximena pedraza CIPAV NGO
57 Cali Alfredo S FANC NGO
59 cartagena Mauricio Gonzalez Hernandez Coolesan civil union
60 cartagena Eduardo Gutierrez Independiente private actor
48
61 cartagena Henry Gómez Nieto El Agrion private actor
62 cartagena Jairo León Finca San Miguel private actor
63 cartagena Milena Sierra private actor
64 cartagena David Universidad Nacional University
65 cartagena Efrain Guerrero Solano Casa Gnecw private actor
66 cartagena Carlos Arjona Gomez Caribegan civil union
67 cartagena Carlos Daniel Arciniegas FEDEGAN civil union
68 cartagena María Fátima Bechara Hacienda private actor
69 cartagena Javier David Cubides Aljure UDCA University
70 cartagena José Daniel Castillo Florez FEDEGAN civil union
71 cartagena José Luis Contreras CORPOICA CORPOICA
72 cartagena Eustorgia Méndez FEDEGAN civil union
73 cartagena John Edison Alzate Independiente private actor
74 cartagena Miguel H Triviño Fedegan civil union
75 cartagena Carlos Alberto Bolaños CIPAV NGO
76 cartagena José Ignacio Catro Inversiones Almeida private actor
77 cartagena María Andrea Arango UDCA University
78 cartagena Marcial Diaz UDCA University
79 cartagena Cindy Restrepo Florez UDCA‐FEDEGAN University
80 cartagena Hans de Waal Finca Los Campanos private actor
81 medellin Rolando Barahona UNAL University
82 medellin Edgar Velez Durango CORANTIOQUIA Government
83 medellin Joaquin Angulo UDEA University
84 medellin Julio Echeverri Gomez UDEA University
85 medellin Olga Lucia Balvin Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Government
86 medellin Ariel Marcel Tarazona UNAL University
87 medellin Cesar Cuartas CIPAV NGO
88 medellin Ricardo Rosero Noguera UDEA University
89 medellin Liliana Mahecha Ledesma UDEA University
90 medellin Juan Fernando Naranjo CIPAV NGO
91 medellin Juan Felipe Casteo Navarro SENA Government
92 medellin Luis Alfonso Giraldo V UNAL University
93 medellin Esau Toro Vanegas COLANTA University
94 Ibagué Cesar Augusto Arce Troncoso SENA University
95 Ibagué Gustavo Barraan Mosquera FEDEGAN civil union
96 Ibagué Heber Vargas EPSAGRO Government
97 Ibagué Juan Carlos Arcos Dorado FEDEGAN civil union
98 Ibagué Jairo Mora Delgado UTOLIMA University
99 Ibagué Linda Mayerli Alvarez Urrea FEDEGAN University
100 Ibagué Hector Fabio Libreros Jaramillo UTOLIMA University
101 Ibagué Eleonora Rodriguez Polanco CORPOICA CORPOICA
102 Ibagué Pablo Felipe Chará Ospina CIPAV NGO
103 Ibagué Hernan Andrade UTOLIMA University
104 Ibagué Mario Javier Gomez Martinez UTOLIMA University
105 Ibagué Carlos Alberto Martinez Chamorro UTOLIMA University
106 Ibagué Jorge Leon Sarasty CORPOICA CORPOICA
107 Ibagué Miguel Alfonso Vanegas Rivera CORPOICA CORPOICA
108 Ibagué Dagoberto C. Cruz CORPOICA CORPOICA
109 Ibagué Milena Segura UTOLIMA University
110 Ibagué Nelson Perez CORPOICA CORPOICA
111 Ibagué Luis Ocampo Osorio CORPOICA CORPOICA
112 Ibagué Roberto Piñerus Varon UTOLIMA University
113 bogota Margarita Ramirez CORPOICA CORPOICA
114 bogota Danilo Portilla Pinzon COPROICA CORPOICA
115 bogota Thomas Carvajal CORPOICA CORPOICA
116 bogota Alexander Navas P Universidad de la Salle University
117 bogota Carlos Lascano A UNAL University
118 bogota Luis Carlos Concha UDCA University
119 bogota Jesus Antonio Betancourt CORPOICA CORPOICA
120 bogota Jhon A. Serrato Suarez CAR Government
121 bogota Laila C. Bernal Bechara Universidad de la Salle University
122 bogota Mauricio Carrasquilla University
123 bogota Luis Carlos Arreaza CORPOICA CORPOICA
124 bogota Jairo L. Cuervo UNAL University
49