Available via license: CC BY-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1) 5
DES CONCEPTS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX AU CONCEPT AGROFORESTIER / LE POINT SUR…
How have environmental concepts
reshaped the agroforestry concept?
Photo 1.
Landscape of Kodagu in the South-West Ghats of India (State of Karnataka).
Rice fields alternate with coffee plantations under forest shade. In the background,
the natural forest massif. Forests are intertwined in coffee plantations.
Photo. C. Garcia.
Marie Barisaux1, 2
1 AgroParisTech
16 rue Claude Bernard
75005 Paris
France
2 Cirad
UPR Forêts et Sociétés
Campus International de Baillarguet
34398 Montpellier cedex 5
France
Auteur correspondant / Corresponding author:
Marie Barisaux - marie.barisaux@agroparistech.fr
6
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1)
FOCUS / FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS TO AGROFORESTRY CONCEPT
RÉSUMÉ
COMMENT LES CONCEPTS
ENVIRONNEMENTAUX ONT-
ILS REFAÇONNÉ LE CONCEPT
AGROFORESTIER ?
Les trois dernières décennies ont été les
témoins d’une évolution des sciences et
des concepts environnementaux. Le but
de cet article est de rendre compte de cette
évolution et de montrer ses conséquences
sur le concept agroforestier. Il repose sur
une analyse bibliométrique réalisée via
le Web of Science, et dresse une synthèse
de la littérature recueillie sur le sujet. Des
exemples sont évoqués pour appuyer l’ar-
gumentation : le système agroforestier du
café dans la région des Western Ghats en
Inde, le système agroforestier du cacao
en Côte d’Ivoire et le système agrofores-
tier de l’hévéa (jungle rubber) en Indoné-
sie. L’agroforesterie a considérablement
évolué avec l’avènement des notions de
biodiversité et d’écosystèmes émergents,
et la science de la conservation englobe
maintenant les écosystèmes modifiés et
altérés par l’homme. L’évolution de l’agro-
foresterie peut ainsi être comparée avec
celle de l’agroécologie : une étude à partir
du Web of Science montre une évolution
similaire sur les deux dernières décennies.
La reconnaissance de l’agroécologie en
tant que science a apporté de nouvelles
méthodes de gestion des systèmes agro-
forestiers. Cependant, l’agroforesterie, par
son évolution et par l’étendue du concept,
est peut-être restée trop déconnectée de
la réalité du terrain et des paysans qui
la pratiquent. Des précautions dans la
conception et la gestion de ces systèmes
doivent donc être prises : il s’agit de ne pas
oublier les attentes des paysans dans des
contextes et avec des déterminants à la
fois sociaux, économiques et politiques ;
ni de s’orienter vers des systèmes exclusi-
vement productivistes. L’agroforesterie ne
saurait devenir un concept environnemen-
tal si elle se vide de sa substance authen-
tique, vouée à l’amélioration durable du
bien-être des paysans.
Mots-clés : agroforesterie, environne-
ment, biodiversité, agroécologie, conser-
vation, paysan.
ABSTRACT
HOW HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS
RESHAPED THE AGROFORESTRY
CONCEPT?
Environmental sciences and concepts
have evolved a great deal in the last three
decades. This study aims to account for
the way environmental concepts have
changed and to describe the conse-
quences for the concept of agroforestry.
The study is based on a bibliometric ana-
lysis carried out on the Web of Science,
and summarizes the literature collected
on the subject. Examples are given to
support the analysis: agroforestry-based
coffee-growing in the Western Ghats in
India, cocoa in Ivory Coast and jungle
rubber in Indonesia. Agroforestry evol-
ved considerably with the emergence of
the biodiversity and ecosystem concepts,
and conservation science now also
covers ecosystems that have been modi-
fied by humans. The development of
agroforestry can be compared with that
of agroecology: a study on the Web of
Science shows a similar pattern in the last
two decades. Although the recognition of
agroecology as a science has introduced
new ways of managing agroforestry sys-
tems, the way agroforestry has deve-
loped and its broad scope of application
may have disconnected it somewhat from
reality on the ground and from the far-
mers who actually practice it. Precautions
are therefore needed in designing and
managing these systems: farmers’ expec-
tations, in contexts that are determined
at once by social, economic and political
factors, must not be ignored, and agrofo-
restry systems should not be exclusively
geared to productivity. Agroforestry can-
not evolve as an environmental concept if
it is voided of its most fundamental goal,
which is to bring sustainable improve-
ments to farming livelihoods.
Keywords: agroforestry, environment,
biodiversity, agroecology, conservation,
smallholder.
RESUMEN
¿CÓMO LOS CONCEPTOS AMBIENTALES
HAN REMODELADO EL CONCEPTO
AGROFORESTAL?
En las tres últimas décadas se ha pro-
ducido una evolución de las ciencias y
conceptos ambientales. El objetivo de
este artículo es dar cuenta de esta evo-
lución y mostrar sus consecuencias en
el concepto agroforestal. Se basa en un
análisis bibliométrico realizado a partir de
la Web of Science y resume la bibliografía
recopilada sobre el tema. Se mencionan
ejemplos para sustentar el análisis: el
sistema agroforestal con café en la región
de Western Ghats en la India, el sistema
agroforestal con cacao en Costa de Marfil y
el sistema agroforestal con caucho (jungle
rubber) en indonesia. La agroforestería
ha evolucionado considerablemente con
la aparición de las nociones de biodi-
versidad y ecosistemas emergentes, y la
ciencia de la conservación abarca ahora
los ecosistemas modificados y alterados
por el ser humano. Así pues, la evolución
de la agroforestería y de la agroecología
pueden compararse: un estudio basado
en la Web of Science muestra una evolu-
ción similar en las dos últimas décadas.
El reconocimiento de la agroecología
como ciencia ha traído nuevas formas de
manejo para los sistemas agroforestales.
Sin embargo, la agroforestería, por su evo-
lución y por la amplitud del concepto, per-
maneció quizás demasiado desconectada
de la realidad de campo y de los campe-
sinos que la practican. Es preciso adoptar
precauciones en la concepción y manejo
de dichos sistemas: no se deben olvidar
las expectativas de los campesinos en
unos contextos y con unos determinantes,
a la vez, sociales, económicos y políticos;
ni dirigirse hacia sistemas únicamente
productivistas. La agroforestería no podrá
convertirse en un concepto ambiental si
se desprende de su principal aspecto,
destinado a mejorar de modo sostenible
el bienestar de los campesinos.
Palabras clave: agroforestería, medio
ambiente, biodiversidad, agroecología,
conservación, campesino.
M. Barisaux
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1) 7
DES CONCEPTS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX AU CONCEPT AGROFORESTIER / LE POINT SUR…
Introduction
During the last three decades, our vision of nature and
environment evolved considerably. The wilderness and the
concept of a pristine nature have been dismissed with this
evolution, and biodiversity became the standard for conser-
vation science. Conservation and environmental sciences
became therefore larger, incorporating all ecosystems in
the whole territory. This means also human-modified and
human-altered ecosystems, such as agroecosystems. This
evolution of the environmental concepts answers to an
evolution of the society, to which environment is becoming
more and more meaningful (Kareiva et al., 2012; Larrère and
Larrère, 2015).
Agroforestry systems can therefore be seen within this
dynamic, as an agroecosystem which can play a role in bio-
diversity conservation and which can provide ecosystem
services for ameliorated food production, social and envi-
ronmental benefits. Agroforestry is a technique practised by
farmers for centuries, but it appears that it became a wides-
pread concept quite recently.
Acknowledging these realities, this ar ticle is an attempt
to understand how agroforestry evolved by incorporating
environmental concepts, and questions if this incorporation
was compatible with the farmers’ expectations.
Problem and research questions
Evolution of agroforestry definitions
The consideration of environment within agroforestry
evolved with its definitions. The very first one was suggested
in 1977 by the Research Center for International Development
(IRDC, Canada). It presented agroforestry as “a sustainable
management system for land that increases overall produc-
tion, combines agricultural crops, tree crops, and forest plants
and/or animals simultaneously or sequentially, and applies
management practices that are compatible with the cultural
patterns of the local population” (Bene et al., 1977). Another
definition was provided by the World Agroforestry Center
(ICRAF) in 1982: agroforestry was “a collective name for land-
use systems and technologies where woody perennials (trees,
shrubs, palms, bamboos etc.) are deliberately used on the
same land-use management units as agricultural crops and/
or animals, in some form of special arrangement or temporal
sequence. In agroforestry systems there are both ecological
and economical interactions between the different compo-
nents” (Lundgren and Raintree, 1983). The World Agroforestry
Center finally updated its definition of agroforestry in 2000. It
became then “a dynamic, ecologically based natural resource
management practices that, through the integration of trees
and other tall woody plants on farms in the agricultural land-
scape, diversifies production for increased social, economic
and environmental benefits” (Schroth et al., 2004).
Photo 2.
Smallholder cocoa plantation in the shadow, under some trees of the original forest in the Azopé region, East of Côte d’Ivoire.
Photo D. Louppe.
8
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1)
FOCUS / FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS TO AGROFORESTRY CONCEPT
Definitions evolved from a mainly agricultural approach
in 1977 towards a more and more significant recognition of
the environmental part. The latter definition also involved
the social and economical sciences within agroforestry.
Research questions
This recognition of environmental sciences within the
definitions of agroforestry in the past thirty years leads to
several questions, which we will try to answer in this article:
How have agroforestry integrated this evolution of environ-
mental concepts?
Was this integration compatible with farmers’ expectations?
Materials and methods
Bibliometric analysis on the Web of Science
We utilized the research platform Web of Science for
this bibliometric analysis because it’s very comprehensive
and versatile, and covers a very large number of disciplines
in all types of publications. Therefore, an analysis on this
platform gives a good overview of the total number of stu-
dies realized for different subjects.
The aim of this bibliometric analysis is to have an idea
of the share of different topics within agroforestry research.
Evolution of environmental topics
within agroforestry research
The aim of this part of the study was to show if agro-
forestry evolved towards a more significant recognition of
its links with environmental sciences over time. We tried to
define environmental sciences by using different keywords, to
encompass the largest number of studies. We chose the words
“environment”, “ecology” and “biodiversity”. Results give the
number of entries found within the topic. We then classified
the number of studies every five years between 1975 and
2015 by using the simple commands on the Web of Science:
[(agroforestry*) AND (environment* OR ecolog* OR
biodiversity*)]
[(agroforestry*)]
Results are presented in figure 1.
Evolution of environmental topics
within agroecological research
The aim of this part of the study was to compare the
evolution of environmental topics within agroecological
research with the results obtained in figure 1. We used the
same keywords to definite the main topics and made the
following requests on the Web of Science every five years
between 1975 and 2015:
[(agroecolog* OR agro-ecolog*) AND (environment* OR
ecolog* OR biodiversity*)]
[(agroecolog* OR agro-ecolog*)]
Results are presented in figure 2.
Evolution of socio-economical topics
within agroforestry research
The aim of this part of the study was to show the rela-
tive importance of socio-economical topics in comparison
to agricultural and environmental topics within agroforestry
research. We used different keywords to definite each topic,
trying to encompass the largest number of studies. We chose
the words “agriculture”, “yield”, “crop” and “livestock” for
the agricultural topic, and the words ‘society’ and “econo-
mic” for the socio-economical topic. The following requests
were made every five years between 1975 and 2015:
[(agroforestry*) AND (environment* OR ecolog* OR
biodiversity*)]
[(agroforestry*) AND (agricultur* OR yield* OR crop* OR
livestock*)]
[(agroforestry*) AND (societ* OR econom*)]
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1975-1980
1980-1985
1985-1990
1990-1995
1995-2000
2000-2005
2005-2010
2010-2015
Number of entries
Years
Agroforestry Agroforestry AND
environmental topics
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1975-1980
1980-1985
1985-1990
1990-1995
1995-2000
2000-2005
2005-2010
2010-2015
Number of entries
Years
Agroecology Agroecology AND
environmental topics
Figure 1.
Number of entries of agroforestry dealing or not
with environmental topics, from 1975 to 2015.
Study realized on the Web of Science.
Figure 2.
Number of entries of agroecology dealing or not
with environmental topics, from 1975 to 2015.
Study realized on the Web of Science.
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1) 9
DES CONCEPTS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX AU CONCEPT AGROFORESTIER / LE POINT SUR…
We made then a comparison of the
relative importance of these topics wit-
hin agroecological research. The following
requests were made every five years
between 1975 and 2015:
[(agroecolog* OR agro-ecolog*) AND (envi-
ronment* OR ecolog* OR biodiversity*)]
[(agroecolog* OR agro-ecolog*) AND (agri-
cultur* OR yield* OR crop* OR livestock*)]
[(agroecolog* OR agro-ecolog*) AND
(societ* OR econom*)]
Results are presented in figures 3
and 4.
Application of this integration
of environmental topics for farmers
The aim of this part of the study is to
measure the application degree of agro-
forestry research for farmers. For that, we
just retook the precedent requests and
added a constraint about farmers, by
using the keywords “smallholder” and
“farmer”. We then made the following
request on the Web of Science every five
years between 1975 and 2015:
[(agroforestry*) AND (environment* OR
ecolog* OR biodiversity*) AND (smallhol-
der* OR farmer*)]
Another analysis can be made by
classifying the number of studies by
country, in order to determine if there are
areas in which research is more or less
focused on environmental sciences for
farmers. All tropical countries were tested
and then regrouped in large areas: North
America, Central America, South America,
North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa,
East Africa, South Africa, South Asia and
South-East Asia. The goal was also to
determine if there are areas where agro-
forestry research is under-represented.
The following requests were made:
[(agroforestry*) AND (environment* OR
ecolog* OR biodiversity*) AND (smallhol-
der* OR farmer*) AND (name of the country)]
Results are presented in figures 5,
6 and 7.
Case study review
Agroforestry systems are not any-
more seen as only agricultural systems,
but as complex food systems in which
environmental sciences are preponde-
rant. Agroforestry systems are therefore
managed in an eco-friendly way and are
able to bring environmental services, such
as carbon sequestration, soil enrichment,
air and water quality and biodiversity
1975-
1980
1980-
1985
1985-
1990
1990-
1995
1995-
2000
2000-
2005
2005-
2010
2010-
2015
Agroforestry AND
socio-economical topics 0 0 9 139 169 197 298 424
Agroforestry AND
environmental topics 0 1 4 155 254 347 639 1042
Agroforestry AND
agricultural topics 0 3 18 357 552 644 918 1365
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage
Years
1975-
1980
1980-
1985
1985-
1990
1990-
1995
1995-
2000
2000-
2005
2005-
2010
2010-
2015
0 0 0 5 18 16 58 94
0 0 1 22 57 59 177 287
0 0 1 28 50 64 190 367
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage
Years
Agroforestry AND
socio-economical topics
Agroforestry AND
environmental topics
Agroforestry AND
agricultural topics
Figure 4.
Share of agricultural, environmental and socio-economical topics in agroecological
research: percentage of the number of studies of each domain coupled to
agroecology research with respect to the total number of studies involving
agroecology, between 1985 and 2015. Study realized on the Web of Science.
Figure 3.
Share of agricultural, environmental and socio-economical topics in agroforestry
research: percentage of the number of studies of each domain coupled to
agroforestry research with respect to the total number of studies involving
agroforestry, between 1980 and 2015. Study realized on the Web of Science.
10
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1)
FOCUS / FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS TO AGROFORESTRY CONCEPT
conservation (Jose, 2009). A particular interest is paid to the
conservation of biodiversity. Indeed, most of tropical lands-
capes are characterized by a mosaic of remnants primary
forest fragments, secondary forest patches, small farms and
large monocultural plantation areas (Perfecto and Vander-
meer, 2008). Agroforestry systems within these landscapes
can play a role in biodiversity conservation through different
ways: three hypotheses were made by Schroth et al. (2004).
The agroforestry-deforestation hypothesis is based on the
assumption that agroforestry can reduce the deforestation
pressure on additional land; the agroforestry-habitat hypo-
thesis assumes that agroforestry systems can provide habi-
tats for local species; and the agroforestry-matrix hypothesis
states that agroforestry systems can promote connectivity
between different forest patches (Schroth et al., 2004).
We decided to work on three exam-
ples to support the analysis. The chosen
examples are the coffee agroforestry sys-
tem in the Western Ghats in India, the
cocoa agroforestry system in Côte d’Ivoire
and the jungle rubber of Indonesia. We
chose those examples because they are
attesting this recognition of environmental
and conservation issues in agroforestry,
and because of the profuse literature
found on these examples. They are used
to attest how this integration of environ-
mental concepts is happening on the
field, and to determine if there are limits
in its application.
RESULTS
Bibliometric analysis
Evolution of environmental topics
within agroforestry research
Environmental sciences within agro-
forestry systems are becoming increa-
singly meaningful in research, especially
for the last two decades. Figure 1 shows
this trend: we notice an increase of the
red curve’s slope, which means an acce-
leration of the importance of environmen-
tal topics within agroforestry research.
Indeed, its proportion of environmental
topics coupled with agroforestry research
in the Web of Science evolved from
about 30% between 1995 and 2000 to
50% between 2010 and 2015 (figure 1).
Indeed, since 2000, environmental topics
are increasingly important in agrofo-
restry research. This was a consequence
of the 1992 Rio Summit’s Convention
on Biological Diversity. It bought a poli-
tical obligation for the preservation of
biodiversity, and thus the creation of
an international program for biodiver-
sity research (1991). Assessments such
as The Global Biodiversity Assessment
(1993) and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2001)
were also launched. More recently Consortiums such as the
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES) were established (2012). Such an evolution
has resulted in reshaping the agroforestry concept (Larrère
and Larrère, 2015).
Evolution of environmental topics
within agroecological research
Figure 2 indicates the number of entries found in the
Web of Science of agroecology dealing or not with environ-
mental topics. The red curve shows that environmental topics
are extremely meaningful in agroecological research: more
than half of the studies encountered are mentioning at least
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1985-1990 1990-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010 2010-2015
Percentage
Years
67,2
50 46 48,7
46,2 48,7
35,3
30
46,2
46,4
34,8
30,2 35,7 38
34,5
47,7
51,2
19 17,8
12,5 13,2
12,4 11,5 14,1
12,7
22,4
24,3
16,6
14
21,4
12,7
11,1
18,1
18,5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
North America (Mexic
o)
Central America
Costa Rica
South America
Brazil
North Africa (Sudan)
West Africa
Niger
Central Africa
Cameroon
East Africa
Kenya
South Africa
South Asia
India
South-East Asia
Indonesia
Percentage
Geographical area
Share (%) of environmental sciences in agroforestry research
Share (%) of environmental sciences with smallholders in agroforestry research
Figure 5.
Share of environmental topics coupled with farmers
in agroforestry research between 1985 and 2015.
Study realized on the Web of Science.
Figure 6.
Share of environmental topics and of environmental topics
coupled with farmers in agroforestry research.
Study realized on the Web of Science.
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1) 11
DES CONCEPTS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX AU CONCEPT AGROFORESTIER / LE POINT SUR…
one of the topics. Moreover, agroforestry and agroecological
research have the same highly increasing activity since 2000
(figures 1 and 2). However, the number of agroecological stud-
ies was low compared to that of agroforestry whereas both are
widespread concepts: about 450 studies for agroecological
research between 2010 and 2015, and about 2100 for agro-
forestry research in the same period of time. Agroecology is
indeed a recent science, whereas agroforestry is ancient and
practiced by many farmers around the world, which explains
its importance (Wezel et al., 2009).
Evolution of socio-economical topics
within agroforestry research
The aim of this part of the study was to establish the
relative importance of socio-economical topics compared
to agricultural and environmental topics in agroforestry
research (figure 3). We made then a comparison with agroe-
cological research (figure 4).
The proportion of socio-economical topics in agrofo-
restry research seemed significant between 1985 and 1990
but it should be seen with considering the low number of
studies. Moreover, those studies were mainly focused on
the economical aspect until 2000. The proportion of envi-
ronmental topics is on a constant increase since their first
appearance: from 10% between 1980 and 1985 to almost
40% between 2010 and 2015. Socio-economical topics
are present in agroforestry research
since 1990, but their share is quite
low and apparently constant: about
15%. This low relative importance of
these socio-economical topics within
agroforestry research is surprising
considering the social importance
of agroforestry, which is technique
practised by farmers for centuries.
The evolution of these three different
domains in agroforestry research can
be copying with the evolution of the
definitions of agroforestry, in which
the accession of environmental and
socio-economical topics are obser-
ved in the same period of time.
By comparing figures 3 and 4, we
notice that the share of each domain
within agroforestry and agroecologi-
cal research is quite the same since
2000. Shares of agricultural topics
and environmental topics are almost
the same, and shares of socio-econo-
mical topics are about 15%.
Application of this integration
of environmental topics for farmers
The aim of this part of the study
was to measure the application
degree of the influence of environ-
mental topics in agroforestry research. In figure 5 we note
that the share of environmental topics coupled with far-
mers in agroforestry research is in constant evolution since
1985 but is still quite low: only 13% of the studies realized
between 2010 and 2015 contain the word “smallholder” or
“farmer”. Application of this evolution of agroforestry for far-
mers seems therefore not so important.
In figures 6 and 7, we classified the number of studies
by country, in order to determine if there are areas in which
research is more or less focused on environmental topics and
farmers. For each area, the country with the largest number of
studies focused on agroforestry was identified. In the cases
of North America, North Africa and South Africa the number
of tropical countries was low: only Mexico and Soudan for
North America and North Africa, and Namibia and Botswana
for South Africa. These areas were not taken into account in
our analysis due to their poor representativeness. Areas in
which the share of environmental topics was the lowest in
agroforestry research were clearly West Africa and East Africa,
whereas the number of studies was one of the highest (third
and first respectively). Areas in which the share of environ-
mental topics was the greatest were America and South-East
Asia. The total number of studies is not so important in these
areas, but their surface areas are a lot lower than the other
ones. Their relative significance is therefore very high.
253
432
263
797
450
78
751
196 201
140
795
314
14
589
487 486
281
170
216
121
388
208
38
268
60
93 65
277
95
5
224
168
232
144
48 77
33
105
56
9
106
25 45 34
132
44
3
75 54
88
52
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
North America (Mexic
o)
Central America
Costa Rica
South America
Brazil
North Africa (Sudan)
West Africa
Niger
Central Africa
Cameroon
East Africa
Kenya
South Africa
South Asia
India
South-East Asia
Indonesia
Agroforestry
Agroforestry AND environmental sciences
Agroforestry AND environmental sciences AND smallholder
Percentage
Geographical area
Figure 7.
Number of studies in agroforestry research coupled or not
with environmental topics, and with environmental topics
and farmers. Study realized on the Web of Science.
12
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1)
FOCUS / FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS TO AGROFORESTRY CONCEPT
When adding the “farmer constraint”, the lowest
percentages were found in Central Africa and South-East
Asia. However this result should be balanced with the total
number of studies realized for Central Africa: it presents the
lowest number of studies and 70% were in Cameroon. In the
case of South-East Asia, we can argue that the expansion of
intensive systems such as palm oil is made at the expense
of smallholders (Rist et al., 2010).
Case study review
Coffee agroforests in the Western Ghats, India
India is the fifth producer of coffee: it represents 4%
of the world total production. The Western Ghats, situated
in the south of India, represent a third of this production,
driven by coffee agroforestry systems (Garcia et al., 2009).
The Western Ghats are a mosaic of different components:
forests, coffee estates and other crops; forming a multifunc-
tional landscape. This region is considered as a biodiversity
hotspot (Ambinakudige and Sathish, 2008). Forests represent
almost 50% of this landscape, and coffee estates about 30%.
They play a very important role in biodiversity conservation
by acting as biological corridors in this landscape, promoting
connectivity between different patches of forest. With the for-
est remnants, coffee estates also offer a wide variety of envi-
ronmental services, such as pollination, carbon sequestration
and water recharge (Schroth et al., 2004; Garcia et al., 2007;
Anand et al., 2010).
Coffee in Western Ghats is traditionally grown under
native trees to shade the coffee trees during the dry season.
Benefits of shade coffee are indeed well recognized, and
many efforts have been made to promote its ecosystem ser-
vices, like the CAFNET project (Kushalappa et al., 2014). But
in the last two decades, the traditional cultivation of Arabica
coffee was replaced by Robusta coffee, which has a better
pest control and an easier management. Moreover, moder-
nization and massive development of irrigation systems and
chemical fertilizers have made farmers less dependent on
the canopy cover and its environmental services. In a goal
of increased yields, native species have been substituted
by the fast-growing exotic Silver grevillea (Grevillea robusta):
this specie is indeed easily marketable because it is not sub-
mitted to the complicated administrative path to which far-
mers have to comply in order to fell and sell a tree. Grevillea
robusta is therefore becoming highly widespread in these
coffee agroforestry systems at the expense of native trees –
even valuable timber species – and biodiversity (Garcia et al.,
2009). Farmers’ knowledge concerning the techniques and
the trees they can use in coffee agroforestry systems isn’t the-
refore taken into account: political and administrative barriers
incite them to abandon native species for Grevillea robusta.
In Western Ghats, a strategy for integrating agricultural
landscapes with biodiversity conservation promoted by Harvey
et al. (2008) was examined by Garcia et al. (2009). This strategy
was based on six points, which are: i) identify and prioritize rural
hotspots; ii) identify and mitigate key threats to biodiversity; iii)
conserve remaining forest habitats; iv) protect, diversify and
sustainably manage tree cover; v) promote and conserve tradi-
tional ecologically based agricultural practices; and vi) restore
degraded land through reforestation or natural regeneration
(Harvey et al., 2008). But promoting biodiversity in this complex
landscape can be complicated due to the diversity of people,
groups and corporations: find a common ground can therefore
be complex (Garcia et al., 2009). Conservation efforts should be
made integrating farmers’ aspirations. Economic benefits are
the main reason why farmers turn to intensive systems, that’s
why promoting payment for ecosystem services and eco-friendly
labels should be developed (Garcia et al., 2007; Marie-Vivien et
al., 2014). A sustainable agroforestry system has therefore to
integrate the social and economical farmers’ expectations.
Photo 3.
A. Jungle Rubber landscape, with clearing of forest and Rubber trees inside the forest, near Jampi on Sumatra Island in Indonesia.
B. Inside of a Jungle Rubber in Indonesia with:
b Hevea brasiliensis (Rubber tree), cultivated for his great industrial valour of latex, and later for woodfuel;
b Palaquim gutta (Guta tree or Sap tree), cultivated great industrial valor to produce rigid natural latex;
b Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit tree or Bread tree), cultivated for his big production of edible fruits and for his precious yellow wood);
b Lansium domesticum (Duku tree or Langsat tree), producing edible fruits and the wood used in building for its good properties of
hardness, thickness and resilience.
Photo E. Penot.
A B
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1) 13
DES CONCEPTS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX AU CONCEPT AGROFORESTIER / LE POINT SUR…
Cocoa plantations in Côte d’Ivoire
Since the late 1970s, Côte d’Ivoire is the first producer of
cocoa. Its production is based on the forest income consump-
tion (Ruf, 1997). This forest income is nowadays almost over
and cocoa plantations cannot feed themselves on it. Indeed,
the depletion of forest resources makes it unable to give the
necessary environmental services for cocoa production: decli-
ning yields, due to low fertility and pest and diseases problems
are therefore observed (Dumont et al., 2014; Sanial, 2015).
The introduction of trees within cocoa plantations to
create agroforestry systems was therefore promoted. Several
environmental services can be brought through trees, such
as shade, pest and diseases control and water retention
(Duguma et al., 2001). Cocoa agroforestry would therefore
permit the renewal of the forest income and a sustainable
production (Sanial, 2015).
To promote these agroforestry systems, different
strategies have been established. One was the creation of
cooperatives, which can advice producers on the different
techniques and trees to establish in their plantations. But
cooperatives and their “official” knowledge can differ from
the farmers’ knowledge. Strong incentives are given to far-
mers for the establishment of agroforestry systems, but
the tree species they recommend are often exotic species
such as Acacia manguium and Gliciridia sepium. Moreover,
some species actually used within agroforestry systems
are discouraged whereas they play an important social role
(Dumont et al., 2014; Sanial, 2015). Managing agroforestry
systems in a sustainable way requires careful incentives:
farmers’ knowledge has to be considered. Neglecting far-
mers is problematical because we miss knowledge we can
use for managing sustainable agroforestry systems, but
also because it encourages farmers’ passiveness. Moreover,
associated trees shouldn’t be seen in an only ecosystem’s
services role only: trees can also play a social, economical,
cultural, medicinal or even spiritual role (Sanial, 2015).
Another strategy was cocoa certification, performed
between 2006 and 2014. This certification was based on
environmental and ethical standards, such as the number
of trees in the plantation, and permit producers to have an
income. It is then a strong incentive for promoting cocoa
agroforestry (Sanial, 2015). But it’s a tool that should be
taken carefully: eco-certification should be used with a good
support to farmers, which isn’t always done (Dumont et al.,
2014). Moreover, the principal motivation for farmers to apply
to this certification is economical, and its ideology was the-
refore more production-oriented than sustainable: this logic
answers more to the expectations of developed countries
rather than of farmers’. Research in cocoa agroforestry should
thus embrace local knowledge with cocoa agronomy and eco-
system services to achieve a sustainable production (Franzen
and Borgerhoff Mulder, 2007; Dumont et al., 2014).
Jungle rubber in Indonesia
Jungle rubber is considered as the model for complex
agroforestry systems. Its functioning is comparable to that
of secondary forest. This system is mainly met in Indonesia,
where 70% of the exported rubber came from those systems
(Penot and Ollivier, 2009).
The effectiveness of these systems is mainly assessed in
an environmental way. Indeed, resources in water and soil are
effectively managed, and a large biological diversity is met.
This complex agroforest is not the most productive, but its
establishment costs are almost null, as well as the workforce
needed. Moreover, in addition of the rubber which is the main
income, farmers can enjoy other products made available by the
forest such as fruits, medicine plants, firewood and timber wood
(Gouyon et al., 1993; Penot, 2004). However, the low producti-
vity of jungle rubber is insufficient compared to other opportuni-
ties for farmers. New agricultural systems such as cinnamon, oil
palm and monocultural rubber clones and the global increase of
quality of life encourages farmers to switch to these more gainful
systems (Kelfoun, 1997; Penot, 2004; Rist et al., 2010).
Environmental services in these complex agroforests are
therefore well recognized, but Indonesia is the only country in
which they are widespread. Some research programs have been
implemented since 1994 to promote these systems and to
enhance better interactions: some systems are based on a mix
between rubber and fruit trees and other are more adapted for
the fight against some diseases and pests (Penot and Ollivier,
2009). Financial incentives such as payment for environmental
services should be given in order to promote these systems
against monocultural systems that are more attractive for far-
mers (Villamor and Van Noordwijk, 2011). Moreover, in a context
where more food production is needed, an extensive and low
yields vision of management cannot be dominant: jungle rubber
can in this way be compared with a “pristine” vision of nature, in
which human activities are absent or limited. But systems must
be productive enough to be economically beneficial for farmers.
Discussion
The bibliometric analysis showed that the relative
importance of environmental topics is extremely meaningful
since the last two decades. We will now discuss the levels for
this more and more significant recognition of environmental
topics within agroforestry research.
The emergence of environmental concepts in rural areas
permitted the evolution of the agroforestry concept
In parallel to this recognition of environmental issues
within agroforestry, environmental concepts themselves
evolved and therefore modified at the same time the agrofo-
restry concept. Sub-topics and new sciences such as biodi-
versity, novel ecosystems and agroecology changed the way
we consider agroforestry systems.
Biodiversity is not only wild: towards a conservation
of human-dominated landscapes
Since the Rio Summit in 1992 and its Convention on
Biological Diversity, biodiversity became a standard for nature
conservation. Its erosion, one of the major effects of human acti-
vities, is then considered as a major challenge. The wilderness
concept was incrementally replaced by that of biodiversity; and
the reintegration of human in nature has permitted the aban-
donment of the dualistic vision of conservation, in which nature
and culture were separated (Larrère and Larrère, 2015).
14
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1)
FOCUS / FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS TO AGROFORESTRY CONCEPT
Despite the extension of biodiversity as a wide scientific
area and the increasing creation of national parks and reserves,
biodiversity is still in rapid decline: protecting places of par-
ticular beauty or places with large number of species is the-
refore not sufficient (Kareiva et al., 2012). Contemporaneous
conservation should therefore turn towards a new direction
in which humans and their activities are involved in nature
(Caillon and Degeorges, 2005; Micoud, 2005). Indeed, the
consequences of human activities within the Anthropocene
are proven: nature untouched by human influences doesn’t
exist. Human activities can therefore carry on with and wit-
hin biodiversity conservation, and conservation success will
depend on the people’s support on conservation goals, and
on the ability to discover win-win outcomes for both people
and nature (Kareiva and Marnier, 2012). Biodiversity conser-
vation should occur in the whole territory, in places such as
tropical primary forests as well as human-dominated and
human-altered landscapes. Agroforestry systems became
therefore a ground for biodiversity conservation.
The ecological interest of redesigned or constructed
systems: agroforestry affiliated to novel ecosystems?
With the reintegration of human in nature came the
concept of novel ecosystems, or emerging ecosystems. They
are defined as: “a system of abiotic, biotic and social com-
ponents that, by virtue of human influence, differ from those
that prevailed historically, having a tendency to self-organize
and manifest novel qualities without intensive human mana-
gement” (Hobbs et al., 2013). They result from direct human
activity, environmental change or impact of introduced spe-
cies (Hobbs et al., 2006; Lindenmayer et al., 2015). Their
conservation value should therefore be seen within the pro-
cess of evolution (Marris, 2011).
This definition of novel ecosystems seems to apply on
agroecosystems and more particularly on secondary forests,
plantation forests but also agroforestry systems. Indeed,
those systems occur after a significant human disturbance
and differ in structure and/or species composition from the
nearby pristine habitats on similar sites (Van Noorwijk et al.,
2016). With their new and human-influenced combinations
of species, these novel ecosystems can therefore be seen as
an opportunity for biodiversity conservation (Brockerhoff et
al., 2008; Chazdon et al., 2009).
It is often assumed that agroecosystems have nothing
more than planned biodiversity, but we do meet a lot of
extremely biodiverse farmers’ farming systems, especially
in the tropics (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2015). Agroforestry
systems can thus be considered as biodiversity reservoirs, as
they contain many native and non-native species and present
a high level of complex interactions (Archarya, 2006; Six et
al., 2014, Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2015). On the contrary,
novel ecosystems require a management that should be
adapted to the ecological and to the socio-economical regio-
nal context (Morse et al., 2014; Murcia et al., 2014). It is in
this sense that agroforestry systems can be affiliated to novel
ecosystems. Although agroforestry is an ancestral practice
used by farmers for centuries, its functioning occurs with
ecological, economical and social interactions and thus its
management is comparable to what is needed for a novel
ecosystem. Agroforestry systems can therefore be seen
within novel ecosystems, as ecosystems that result from
human activities and that present a high level of biodiversity
and complex interactions.
Progressive recognition of agroecology as a science
The concept of agroecology first appeared in the 1930s,
it was defined as the application of ecology in agriculture
(Wezel et al., 2009). It became the science of agroecosys-
tems in the early 1980s, and consolidated as it in the next
decade (Wezel and Soldat, 2009). In the last two decades,
the agroecological science incorporated new dimensions
and became more and more significant in research. A more
systemic approach is promoted: agroecology is not anymore
limited to the main domains of agriculture and ecology. It
includes all the scales of a food system and involves new
topics such as biodiversity, sociology and politics, toward
the core subject of sustainable agriculture (Wezel and Sol-
dat, 2009; Tomich et al., 2011; Méndez et al., 2013).
As we have seen above, environmental topics had
almost the same evolution in agroecological and agrofo-
restry research since the last two decades. Agroforestry
could therefore be seen within agroecology, as a science,
a technique and a practice for managing sustainable food
systems. Both sciences include indeed not only agricultural
and environmental topics, but also socio-economical topics
(Schroth et al., 2004; Wezel et al., 2009). Although the share
of socio-economical topics is not that huge it is still there
and is part of a food system. The last two decades were cru-
cial for the advent of a conservation science that can occur
in agricultural landscapes, and for the emergence of a sus-
tainable science and practice for managing those systems.
Is this evolution of environmental topics
within agroforestry research effective for farmers?
Where is the farmer interest (or not) in this new vision
of agroforestry?
This new vision of agroforestry in which environmen-
tal topics are increasingly meaningful is beneficial for far-
mers in the sense that a better understanding of ecological
interactions and environmental services will help to design
sustainable agroforestry systems. However, in the light
of the examples developed in above, we can distinguish
several limits that have to be taken into account.
Agroforestry projects must be realized according to
the expectations of farmers: It is often the farmers who
decide to change their ancestral practices to more inten-
sive ones. We must abandon the assumption that farmers
will welcome the preservation of their traditional livelihood
systems if it’s not beneficial for them (Garcia et al., 2009).
We must understand their will of increased income and esta-
blish sustainable systems that can answer to their wishes.
Socio-economical and political factors enhance the
environmental ones: The definition of agroforestry involves
social and economical topics in the design of sustainable
food systems. In practice it appears that these components
are often leftovers. Social economical and political aspects
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1) 15
DES CONCEPTS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX AU CONCEPT AGROFORESTIER / LE POINT SUR…
are the drivers of most decision makings, and neglecting
them will obligatory lead to a failure in the design and the
management of sustainable food systems.
Management and incentive tools should be taken care-
fully: Certification as an economic incentive can indeed be
a way to promote agroforestry systems, but its use should
evolve to be a real tool for sustainability (Ruf et al., 2014).
Moreover, certifications should take into account the cultural
differentiation in the nature of maintained trees: they cannot
all be used to enhance ecosystem services (Sanial, 2015).
Production-oriented systems are hardly sustainable:
Promoting exotic trees known for their environmental value
lead to a standardization of agroforestry systems, which
tend to production-oriented systems. This is disastrous
not only for biodiversity but also in a social and cultural
way (Garcia et al., 2009; Rist et al., 2010; Sanial, 2015). An
increased production is of course one of the goals of agro-
forestry systems, but it shouldn’t be done at the expense of
social aspects.
How does research follow this evolution?
Our bibliometric analysis showed that – whereas the
global share of environmental topics in agroforestry research
is important – application of this research for farmers seems
generally quite low (figure 5). However, we did not identify
areas in which there is a significant lack of research or areas
that are over-represented.
The evolution of the agroforestry concept, which was
enriched with environmental topics and concepts, is presu-
mably too disconnected from the field reality in research.
Perhaps a research in a more participatory form with the
farmers should be encouraged and developed, in order to
embrace at the same time local knowledge, agronomy and
ecosystem services provision. Moreover, the bibliographical
analysis did not permit to meet studies about the durability
of agroforestry systems.
Conclusion
The incorporation of environmental topics and concepts
resulted in a significant evolution of the agroforestry concept.
Agroforestry is now seen as an entire environment-friendly
food system and applies the principles of agroecology. Agro-
forestry systems provide a wide variety of ecosystem services
and are a ground for biodiversity conservation.
Whereas the incorporation and the application of envi-
ronmental sciences are necessary for the management of
sustainable agroforestry systems, this evolution may have
been done at the expense of farmers who became passive
and puzzled in front of the conception of new agroforestry
systems. Farmers’ expectations may be devaluated in this
new vision of agroforestry. While research should be done
for the benefit of farmers, only 20% of the total studies on
agroforestry indexed in the Web of Science contain the word
“smallholder” or “farmer”. By analysing the examples of cof-
fee agroforestry systems in Western Ghats in India, cocoa
agroforestry in Côte d’Ivoire and jungle rubber in Indonesia,
we clearly see false notes in their management. The integra-
tion of environmental concerns in elaborating agroforestry
projects is indeed often made without considering the far-
mers’ expectations, and the socio-economical and political
factors are often neglected. Moreover, advices and tools pro-
moted in these projects, such as exotic species and eco-cer-
tification, should be better used.
This new regard on agroforestry systems seems to
be finally a little disconnected from the food production:
its evolution is more and more theoretical, and even more
somewhat ideological. The evolution of the concept is widely
known, but their applications are less obvious. Research
should perhaps turn towards more practical studies which
mustn’t forget farmers’ knowledge, in order to give them a
framework to manage their agroforestry systems in a sustai-
nable way.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by Bois et Forêts des Tro-
piques, within a two months training course. I am grateful to
many experts from Cirad for stimulating discussions about
aspects of this paper, especially, Elsa Sanial, François Ruf,
Claude Garcia, Régis Peltier, Philippe Bastide, Olivier Souni-
gou, Dominique Louppe, Nicole Sibelet and Jacques Tassin.
The paper has been improved from the constructive com-
ments of three anonymous reviewers.
References
Ambinakudige S., Sathish B. N., 2008. Comparing tree diver-
sity and composition in coffee farms and sacred forests in
the Western Ghats of India. Biodiversity Conservation, 18:
987-1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9502-5
Anand M. O., Krishnaswamy J., Kumar A., Bali A., 2010.
Sustaining biodiversity conservation in human-modified
landscapes in the Western Ghats: Remnant forests matters.
Biological Conservation, 143: 2363-2374. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.013
Archarya K. P., 2006. Linking trees on farms with biodiver-
sity conservation subsistence farming systems in Nepal.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 15: 631-646. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10531-005-2091-7
Bene J. G., Beall H. W., Cote A., 1977. Trees, food and people:
land management in the tropics. International Develop-
ment Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. http://hdl.handle.
net/10625/930
Brockerhoff E. G., Jactel H., Parrotta J. A., Quine C. P., Sayer
J., 2008. Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or
opportunity? Biodiversity and Conservation, 17: 925-951.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9380-x
Caillon S., Degeorges P., 2005. Biodiversité(s), quand les
frontières entre nature et culture s’effacent. La biodiversité
est-elle encore naturelle ? Écologie et politique, 30 : 85-95.
http://www.ecologie-et-politique.info/IMG/pdf/30-Biodi-
versite-s-quand-les-frontieres-entre-culture-et-nature-s-ef-
facent.pdf
Chazdon R. L., Peres C. A., Dent D., Sheil D., Lugo A. E.,
Lamb D., Stork N. E., Miller S. E., 2009. The potential
for species conservation in tropical secondary forests.
Conservation Biology, 23: 1406-1417. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01338.x
Duguma B., Gockowski J., Bakala J., 2001. Smallholder
Cacao (Theobroma cacao Linn.) cultivation in agroforestry
systems of West and Central Africa: challenges and oppor-
tunities. Agroforestry Systems, 51: 177-188. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1023/A:1010747224249
Dumont E. S., Gnahoua G. M., Ohouo L., Sinclair F. L., Vaast
P., 2014. Farmers in Côte d’Ivoire value integrating tree diver-
sity in cocoa for the provision of ecosystem services. Agrofo-
restry Systems, 88: 1047-1066. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10457-014-9679-4
Franzen M., Borgerhoff Mulder M., 2007. Ecological, econo-
mic and social perspectives on cocoa production worldwide.
Biodiversity Conservation, 16: 3835-3849. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10531-007-9183-5
Garcia C. A., Marie-Vivien D., Kushalappa C. G., Chengappa
P. G., Nanaya K. M., 2007. Geographical indications and bio-
diversity in the Western Ghats, India: can labeling benefit
producers and the environment in a mountain agroforestry
landscape? Mountain Research and Development, 27 (3):
206-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0922
Garcia C. A., Bhagwat S. A., Ghazoul J., Nath C. D., Nanaya
K. M., Kushalappa C. G., et al., 2009. Biodiversity conser-
vation in agricultural landscapes: challenges and oppor-
tunities of coffee agroforests in the Western Ghats, India.
Conservation Biology, 24 (2): 479-488. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01386.x
Gouyon H., De Foresta H., Levang P., 1993. Does “jungle rub-
ber” deserve its name? An analysis of rubber agroforestry
systems in southeast Sumatra. Agroforestry Systems, 22:
181-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00705233
Harvey C. A., Komar O., Chazdon R., Ferguson B. G., Finegan
B., Griffith D. M., et al., 2008. Integrating agricultural lands-
capes with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican
hotspot. Conservation Biology, 22 (1): 8-15. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00863.x
Hobbs R. J., Arico S., Aronson J., Baron J. S., Bridgewater P.,
Cramer V. A., et al., 2006. Novel ecosystems: theoretical and
management aspects of the new ecological world order.
Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15: 1-7. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00212.x
Hobbs R. J., Higgs E. S., Hall C. M., 2013. Defining novel eco-
systems. Novel Ecosystems: intervening in the new ecologi-
cal world order. John Willey & Sons Ltd, 380 p.
Jose S., 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and envi-
ronmental benefits: an overview. Agroforestry systems, 76
(1): 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7
Kareiva P., Marvier M., 2012. What is conservation science?
BioScience, 62: 962-969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/
bio.2012.62.11.5
Kareiva P., Marvier M., Lalasz R., 2012. Conserva-
tion in the Anthropocene. Beyond solitude and fra-
gility. The Breakthrough Institute. http://thebreak-
through.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/
conservation-in-the-anthropocene
Kelfoun A., 1997. La nécessaire évolution des agroforêts
à hévéas pour une meilleure productivité : contraintes et
opportunités dans la province de Jambi, Sumatra, Indoné-
sie. France, Rennes, ENSAR, 65 p. http://agritrop.cirad.
fr/546292/
Kushalappa C. G., Vaast P., Raghuramulu Y., Garcia C., Sinclair
F. L., 2014. CAFNET – First effort in India to value ecosystem
services from coffee based agroforestry systems. In: Abs-
tracts of the 3rd World Congress of Agroforestry, Compendium
of abstracts, Trees for life: accelerating the impact of agrofo-
restry, Eds Wachira M. A., Rabar B., Magaju C., Borah G., Nai-
robi, World Agroforestry Center, p. 2. http://www.worldagrofo-
restry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/B17335.PDF
Larrère C., Larrère R., 2015. Penser et agir avec la nature.
France, Éditions La Découverte : 334 p.
Lindenmayer D., Messier C., Paquette A., Hobbs R. J., 2015.
Managing tree plantations as novel socioecological sys-
tems: Australian and North American perspectives. Cana-
dian Journal of Forest Research, 45: 1527-1433. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0072
Lundgren B., Raintree J. B., 1983. Sustained Agroforestry.
Agricultural research for development: potentials and
challenges in Asia. Jakarta (Indonesia). Reprinted from Agri-
cultural Research for Development: Potentials and Challen-
ges in Asia, report of a conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, Octo-
ber 24-29 1982, Ed. Nestel B. The Hague, ISNAR, 1983,
ICRAF, 27 p. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABC621.pdf
Marie-Vivien D., Garcia C. A., Kushalappa C. G., Vaast P.,
2014. Trademarks, geographical indications and environ-
mental labeling to promote biodiversity: the case of agro-
forestry coffee in India. Development Policy Review, 32 (4):
379-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12060
Marris E., 2011. Rambunctious garden: saving nature in a
post-wild world. USA, Bloomsbury, 210 p.
Méndez V. E., Bacon C. M., Cohen R., 2013. Agroecology as a
transdisciplinary, participatory and action-oriented approach.
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37 (1): 3-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.736926
Micoud A., 2005. La biodiversité est-elle encore naturelle ?
Écologie et Politique, 30 : 17-25. http://www.ecologie-et-po-
litique.info/IMG/pdf/30-La-biodiversite-est-elle-encore-na-
turelle.pdf
16
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1)
FOCUS / FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS TO AGROFORESTRY CONCEPT
BOIS ET FORÊTS DES TROPIQUES, 2017, N° 331 (1) 17
DES CONCEPTS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX AU CONCEPT AGROFORESTIER / LE POINT SUR…
Morse N. B., Pellissier P. A., Cianciola E. N., Brereton R. L.,
Sullivan M. M., Shonka N. K., Wheeler T. B., McDowell W. H.,
2014. Novel ecosystems in the Anthropocene: a revision of
the novel ecosystem concept for pragmatic applications.
Ecology and Society, 19 (2): 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES-06192-190212
Murcia C., Aronson J., Kattan G. H., Moreno-Mateos D., Dixon
K., Simberloff D., 2014. A critique of the “novel ecosystem”
concept. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29 (10): 548-553.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.07.006
Penot E., 2004. From shifting agriculture to sustainable rub-
ber agroforestry systems (jungle rubber) in Indonesia: a his-
tory of innovations processes. In: Beyond tropical defores-
tation, Ed. Babin D., UNESCO/Cirad, 221-250. https://hal.
archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/173302/filename/
BOOK_CHAPTER_unesco_2003_af_pENOT.pdf
Penot E., Ollivier I., 2009. L’hévéa en association avec
les cultures pérennes, fruitières ou forestières: quelques
exemples en Asie, Afrique et Amérique latine. Bois et
Forêts des Tropiques, 301 (3): 67-82. http://bft.cirad.fr/cd/
BFT_301_67-82.pdf
Perfecto L., Vandermeer J., 2008. Biodiversity conserva-
tion in tropical agroecosystems. The Year in Ecology and
Conservation Biology, 173-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/
annals.1439.011
Perfecto I., Vandermeer J., 2015. Structural constraints on
novel ecosystems in agriculture: The rapid emergence of
stereotypic modules. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evo-
lution and Systematics, 17 (6): 522-530. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ppees.2015.09.002
Rist L., Feintrenie L., Levang P., 2010. The livelihood
impacts of oil palm: smallholders in Indonesia. Biodiver-
sity and Conservation, 19 (4): 1009-1024. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10531-010-9815-z
Ruf F., 1997. Booms et crises du cacao. Économie Rurale,
239 (1) : 61-62. http://www.persee.fr/doc/ecoru_0013-
0559_1997_num_239_1_4869_t1_0061_0000_1
Ruf F., N’Dao Y., Lemeilleur S., 2014. Certification du cacao,
stratégie à hauts risques. Bulletin de Veille Inter-réseaux
Développement Rural, 217 : 1-7. http://www.inter-reseaux.
org/IMG/pdf/Certification_du_cacao_Ruf_juin2013.pdf
Sanial E., 2015. À la recherche de l’ombre: analyse du retour
des arbres associés dans les plantations de cacao ivoi-
riennes. Master II, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3.
Schroth G., da Fonseca G. A. B., Harvey C. A., Gascon C.,
Vasconcelos H. L., Izac A. M., 2004. Agroforestry and Bio-
diversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes, Washington
DC, Island Press, 524 p. http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/
Permaculture/Agroforestry/Agroforestry_and_Biodiversity_
Conservation_in_Tropical_Landscapes.pdf
Six L. J., Bakker J. D., Bilby R. E., 2014. Vegetation dyna-
mics in a novel ecosystem: agroforestry effects on grassland
vegetation in Uruguay. Ecosphere, 5: 1-15. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1890/ES13-00347.1
Tomich T. P., Brodt S., Ferris H., Galt R., Horwath W. R.,
Kebreab E., et al., 2011. Agroecology: a review from a glo-
bal-change perspective. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources, 36: 193-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-environ-012110-121302
Van Noorwijk N., Coe R., Sinclair F., 2016. Central hypotheses
for the third agroforestry paradigm within a common defini-
tion. Working Paper 223, Bogor, Indonesia: World Agrofo-
restry Centre (ICRAF), Southeast Asia Regional Program.
Villamor G. B., Van Noordwijk M., 2011. Social role-play
games vs individual perceptions of conservation and PES
agreements for maintaining rubber agroforests in Jambi
(Sumatra), Indonesia. Ecology and Society, 16 (3): 27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04339-160327
Wezel A., Bellon S., Doré T., Francis C., Vallod D., 2009.
Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A
review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer
Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, 2009, 29 (4): 503-515. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004
Wezel A., Soldat V., 2009. A quantitative and qualitative his-
torical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7 (1):
3-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0400
