1. Introducing AGFORWARD –
a Project to advance Agroforestry in Europe
Paul J. Burgess1, Anil R. Graves1 , M. Bestman2, V. Bondesan3, C.Dupraz4,5, D. Freese6, A
Guichaoua7 , T. Hartel8, J. Hermansen9, F. Herzog10, F. Liagre11, M. Lindner12, J. McAdam13, G.
Moreno14, R. Mosquera Losada15, J. Palma16, A. Pantera17, P. Paris18, T. Plieninger19,
L. Rakosy8, A. Rosati20, F. Sinclair21, J. Smith22, A. Vityi23, J. Watte24
Presentation at World Agroforestry Congress: Session 5.5
Wednesday 12 February 2014

2. 1 Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK45 2TT, UK
2
Louis Bolk Instituut, Hoofdstraat 24, Driebergen Rijsenburg, 3972 LA, Netherlands
3 Veneto Agricoltura, 14 Viale dell’Università, Legnaro, 33020, Italy
4 INRA, 147 Rue De L’Universite, Paris Cedex 07, 75338, France
5 European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF), 14 Rue Pagès, Montpellier, 34070, France
6 BTU Cottbus, 1 Platz der Deutschen Einheit, Cottbus, 03046, Germany
7 ACTA, 149 rue de Bercy, Paris, 75012, France
8 Universitatea Babes Bolyai, 1 Mihail Kogalniceanu, Cluj-Napoca 400084, Romania
9 Aarhus Universitet, 1 Nordre Ringgade, Aarhus 8000, Denmark
10 Eidgenoessisches Volkswirtschaftsdepartment, Bundeshaus Ost, Bern, 3003, Switzerland
11 AGROOF, 120 Impasse des 4 Vents, Anduze 30140, France
12 European Forest Institute, 34 Torikatu, Joensuu, 80100, Finland
13 Agrifood and Biosciences Institute, 18A Newforge Lane, Belfast, BT9 5PX, UK
14 Universidad de Extremadura, Avenida de Elvas, Badajoz, 06006, Spain
15 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
16 Instituto Superior de Agronomia (ISA) of Tapada da Ajuda, Lisboa, 1349-017, Portugal
17 TEI Stereas Elladas, 3 KLM Palaias Ethnilis Odou, Lamia, 35100, Greece
18 Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche (CNR), 7 Piazzale Aldo Moro, Roma, 00185, Italy
19 University of Copenhagen (UCPH), Nørregade 10, 1165 Copenhagen K, Denmark
20 Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, 82 Via Nazionale, Roma, 00184, Italy
21 ICRAF, U.N. Avenue Off Limuru Road, Gigiri, P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya
22 Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm, Hamstead Marshall, Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 0HR, UK
23 NymE KKK Nonprofit Kft, 4 Bajcsy-Zs. Sopron, 9400, Hungary
24 Wervel, 26 Edinburgstraat, Elsene, 1050, Belgium

3. A new partnership building on previous research
•
•
Building on previous research, such as the Silvoarable Agroforestry for Europe
SAFE (2001-2005) project, led by Christian Dupraz
Launch of new project at Cranfield University, UK (21-22 January 2014)

4. Partners covering a range of
agroclimatic zones
Participant organisation name
1.
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Cranfield University
European Forest Institute
Association de Coordination Technique Agricole
University of Santiago de Compostela
TEI Stereas Elladas
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
Organic Research Centre
BTU Cottbus
Universidad de Extremadura
Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisbon
University of Copenhagen
Research Station FDEA-ART Zurich
Wervel vzw
Aarhus University
Agri Food and Biosciences Institute
Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in
Agricoltura
Louis Bolk Institute
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
NYME
Universitatea Babes-Bolyai
Veneto Agricoltura
Agroof
Assemblée Permanente des Chambres d’Agriculture
Association Française d’AgroForesterie
World Agroforestry Centre
European Agroforestry Federation

5. Content
•
•
•
•
•
Partnership building on previous research
Problem, aim and objectives
Participation
Preparing tools to allow scaling
Promotion

6. Agriculture: components of
a farm system
Solar
radiation
Irrigation,
Fertilisers
Cultivation
Crop products
Animal
products
Animal
feed
Water and
nutrients
Soil
Wastes

7. Marketable benefits
of UK agriculture in 2007
Positive
effect
Output of crops
Output of livestock
Other marketable services
Cost of inputs
£5,867 million
Value added
£5,167 million
Negative
effect
DEFRA (2012)
£8,516 million
£1,002 million
£10,218 million

8. Agriculture:
components of a farm system
Irrigation,
Fertilisers
Cultivation
Solar
radiation
Methane,
CO2
NH3
N2O
Crop products
Biodiversity
value
Loss of
soil C
Landscape
value
Water and
nutrients
Soil
Effect on
health
Animal
products
Animal
feed
Nitrates,
phosphates,
pesticides
Wastes
Soil erosion and
salinity

9. Environmental benefits and
costs of UK agriculture 2007
Spencer et al. (2008)
Positive effect
£1,413 million
Climate change
£656 million
Air (e.g. ammonia)
Water
Soil
Waste
Landscape & habitats
Biodiversity
Total
Net effect
Negative effect
£364 million
£9 million
£35 million
£8 million
£854 million
£307 million
£1,196 million
£2,450 million
£1,254 million

10. Value of provisioning services (£
billion a-1)
Value of UK agriculture (2007)
-10
10
2007
0
0
Value of non-provisioning ecosystem services (£ billion a-1)
10

11. Value of provisioning services (£
billion a-1)
Value of UK agriculture (2007)
-10
10
2007
0
0
Value of non-provisioning ecosystem services (£ billion a-1)
10

12. Value of provisioning services (£
billion a-1)
Value of UK agriculture (2007)
-10
10
2007
0
0
Value of non-provisioning ecosystem services (£ billion a-1)
10

13. Value of UK agriculture (2007)
Value of provisioning services (£
billion a-1)
Classical
intensification
-10
Agroforestry as a way of
increasing the value of
production whilst creating
environmental benefits
10
2007
Extensification
0
0
Value of non-provisioning ecosystem services (£ billion a-1)
The analysis does not include change in asset values
10

14. Relative tree yield per
hectare
1.4
France
1.2
Spain
1.0
Netherlands
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Relative crop yield per hectare
Previous EU-funded research has highlighted resource efficiency gains from
agroforestry (Graves et al. 2007)

15. A key hypothesis of AGFORWARD is that agroforestry, the integration of trees and
shrubs with agriculture, can lead to a higher value of ecosystem services per hectare
than disaggregated agricultural and woodland systems.

16. EU targets
• Improving competitiveness of EU agriculture whilst
improving the environment
• Prevention of further loss to biodiversity
• Reduction of EU greenhouse gas emissions
• Greater resilience to climate change
• Greater resilience to higher fuel prices
• Reduce wildfire risk
• Improving water quality
• More coherent landscape protection
Agroforestry landscape - Staffordshire

17. AGFORWAR
AGroFORestry that Will Advance Rural Development
Aim: to promote
agroforestry practices
in Europe that will
advance rural
development

18. Four main components to project
2. Participatory Research and Development Networks
1.
Context
WP1.
Existing
agroforestry
systems in
Europe
WP3
WP2
Agroforestry Agroforestry
for high
systems of
value tree
high natural
systems
and cultural
value
WP4
Agroforestry
for arable
systems
WP5
Agroforestry
for livestock
systems
WP9.
Dissemination
3. Evaluating innovations
WP6. Field- and farm-scale evaluation of innovations
WP7. Landscape-scale evaluation of agroforestry
Project management
4. Promotion
of agroforestry
WP10 . Project Management
WP8.
Agroforestry
policy
development

19. Objective 1: To understand the context and
extent of existing agroforestry systems in Europe
Lead: Marcus Lindner, European Forest Institute
Field-scale
agroforestry
1. To explain how
agroforestry is described
in existing EU land use
and land use databases
2. What can we learn from
areas bordering Europe?
(Fergus Sinclair, ICRAF)
Farm-scale
agroforestry

20. Objective 2: to identify, develop and field-test
agroforestry innovations in the field with
participatory networks
Arable
WP4
WP4
WP2
Agroforestry
in arable
systems
Agroforestry
of high nature
Crops and
and cultural
livestock with
value
high value
trees WP3
Livestock
WP5
Agroforestry in
livestock systems
Animal component
High value
trees
The AGFORWARD project
will focus on four sectors:
WP2: existing agroforestry
systems of high nature
and cultural value (HNCV)
WP3: integrating livestock
and crops into high value
tree systems
WP4: agroforestry for
arable systems and
WP5 agroforestry for
livestock systems.

21. High Nature and Cultural Value
agroforestry systems (WP2)
lead: Gerardo Moreno

22. High Value Tree Systems (WP3)
lead: Anastasia Pantera

23. Agroforestry for arable farmers (WP4)
lead: Dirk Freese

24. Agroforestry for livestock systems (WP5)
lead: John Hermansen

25. Woodland eggs and chickens
• Woodland egg production
• Welfare benefits for hens
• Estimated to be 200 woodland
egg producers in UK
Woodland egg experiment
Oxfordshire (2010)
Flood plain recreational area,
Milton Keynes
Sheep production

26. The aim is to have a range of stakeholder groups across the four sectors focused on
innovations and improvements in practice

27. Objective 3: to evaluate innovative agroforestry
designs and practices at a field and farm-scale
(WP6) and at a landscape-scale (WP7)
WP6 Lead: Joao Palma (Lisbon University)
Wp7 Lead: Tobias Pleininger (University of Copenhagen)

28. Development of existing field and farm- scale bioeconomic models
• Yield-SAFE
• Farm-SAFE
• Hi-SAFE

29. Objective 4: to promote the wider adoption of
appropriate agroforestry systems in Europe through
policy development and dissemination (WP8, WP9).
WP8 Lead: Rosa Mosquera-Losada (USC)
WP9: Lead: Fabien Liagre (AGROOF)
2nd European Agroforestry Federation Conference
4-6 June 2014, Cottbus, Germany

30. Summary
• A new agroforestry project to help improve the
competitiveness of EU agriculture whilst
improving the environment
• Partnerships building on previous research
• We are developing stakeholder groups with
farmers and advisors focused on specific sectors
• Development of tools to allow scaling
• Focus on policy work and sharing the results
Acknowledgement: Research sponsored by the European
Commission FP7 Research Programme (2014-2017)

31. References
Defra (2012). Agriculture in the UK
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/general/auk/late
st/excel/
Graves, A.R., Burgess, P.J., Palma, J.H.N., Herzog, F., Moreno, G., Bertomeu, M.
, Dupraz, C., Liagre, F., Keesman, K., van der Werf, W. Koeffeman de
Nooy, A. & van den Briel, J.P. (2007). Development and application of bioeconomic modelling to compare silvoarable, arable and forestry systems
in three European countries. Ecological Engineering 29: 434-449.
Spencer, I., Bann, C., Moran, D., McVittie, A., Lawrence, K., Caldwell, V. &
Morris, J. (2008) Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Project SFS0601.
Final Report for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
Welsh Assembly Government; Scottish Government; Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland). Available from:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/envac
c/documents/Jacobs-fullreport.pdf (accessed 8 August 2012).

32. Partners: universities and groups
working for farmers