Agroforestry Technology Transfer: Individual and Organizational Considerations

1
Agroforestry Technology Transfer Individual and
Organizational Considerations
J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr. Extension
Sociologist Department of Sociology Iowa State
University
2
Where can agroforestry fit in a changing
agri-environmental landscape?

• Diverse landowner objectives
• NRP knowledge/areas of expertise
• Orientation of agencies and organizations
• Policies and programs

3
Competing Social Paradigms

• What is a Social Paradigm?
• Agreement among members of societal groups about
  what is important, how things should be
• Competing paradigmatic worldviews values,
  attitudes, belief systems shape social action,
  often at root of conflicts

Courtesy of USDA/NRCS
4
Productivist vs. Ecological Paradigms

• Productivist paradigm
• Maximization of narrowly defined productivity
• Commodity focus
• Disaggregated yield per acre
• Ecological paradigm
• Wholes farm, watershed, ecosystem
• Productivity in terms of agroecological systems
• Integrity of social and natural communities

5
Organizational Paradigm Continuum
Farm Service Agency
Cattlemen's Assn.
Earth First!
Departments of Natural Resources
Nature Conservancy
University Extension
Ducks Unlimited
NRCS/SWCD
Farm Bureau
Commodity Groups
Ecological
Productivist
6
Farmer Paradigm Continuum
Permaculture/ biodynamic
Large-scale commodity producers
Acreage/hobby Farms
Ecological
Productivist
7
Farmers/Landowners

• Larger farms getting larger
• Smaller farms proliferating
• Medium-sized farms disappearing
• 60 of farmland rented

8
Landowner objectives who might be interested in
agroforestry and why?

• Larger farms continuing specialization
• Protect and maintain soil fertility, reaction to
  public demands
• Smaller farms acreage landowners, diversified
  direct marketers
• Aesthetics, wildlife
• Added crop diversification for food, raw
  materials for manufacture
• Medium-sized farms survival mode
• Diversification, protection of resource
• Non-operator landowners
• Financial, community attachment, and
  environmental motives

9
A Multitude of Interested Actors

• Multiple agencies, orgs, other actors, have
  diverse missions, policies, programs, objectives
  competing interests
• Areas of paradigmatic conflict and agreement

10
Changing nature of environmental management

• Agri-environmental landscape is changing
• Rural/Urban demographic change changing rural
  land use expectations

11

• The public is becoming more aware of the impacts
  of agriculture agencies are pressured to act

Courtesy of USDA/NRCS
12
Management paradigms shifting Game management
Ecosystem management
13
NRPs and agroforestry

• Little experience and knowledge of AF
• Area of expertise can trump interest in AF
• Institutional factors ties that bind

Courtesy of USDA/NRCS
14
Policy and program barriers to agroforestry

• Farm Bill
• Conservation title
• Commodity title
• State agricultural programs generally lockstep
  with federal

15
NRCS conservation programs

• Productive vs. protective agroforestry
• CCRP Riparian buffers 772,000 ac by 2007
• Strict limitations on design, harvest
• No introduced species (i.e., curly willow,
  Chinese chestnuts, European hazelnuts)
• Ambiguous harvest/management options
• Lucrative and stable CCRP income may compete w/
  uncertain non-NRCS productive RB
• Buffers/other practices tilted toward protective

16
USDA commodity programs

• 40 of net ag income for participants
• DCP program largest component
• Fruit and vegetable crops (FAVs), including nuts,
  prohibited
• Planting FAVs can result in payment reductions
  and severe penalties

17
How to get past barriers?

• Recognize paradigmatic orientation
• Productivist farmers and orgs protective
  agroforestry
• Ecologically-oriented farmers and orgs
  productive agroforestry
• Acreage landowners livestock and
  wildlife-oriented AF, windbreaks, silvopasture,
  buffers
• Medium-size farms many likely open to both
  productive and protective AF
• Non-operator landowners wildcard, but must
  eventually be reached

18
Many barriers, but many opportunities

• Need for more perennials
• Changing demands of resources
• Changing landownership expectations

19

• Thanks!