1 of 20

Assessing the Feasibility and Sustainability of Agroforestry in Georgia

Ashwin Jajoo

Camila Ziadi

Garrett Tallman

Troy Heinzmann

�

2 of 20

Introduction

Agroforestry – the practice of traditional agriculture and conventional forestry
Expand use of Earth’s carbon sinks
2/3 of GA is forested, total of 25 million acres
Lack of federal policy in the US for agroforestry

India National Agroforestry Policy (NAP)
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Healthy Soils Program (HSP)

Economic and technical potential
Land Management concerns

Figure from USDA Climate Change Resource Center https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/agroforestry

Agroforestry is the practice of traditional agriculture and conventional forestry

There are five main agroforestry practices, as shown in the image to the right. Silvopasture is the most common strategy. It is the deliberate integration of trees and grazing livestock operations on the same land.

Agroforestry is a way of expanding the use of Earth’s carbon sinks that absorb and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Out of the three naturally occurring carbon sinks, land sinks provide the safest method for sequestering carbon.

There is a fundamental lack of federal policy in the US for agroforestry.

India was the first country to launch a national agroforestry policy

Some domestic policies include the conservation reserve program and the healthy soils program, established by California’s Department of Food and Agriculture

Agroforestry has economic and technical potential, and with it come concerns for how to manage public and private land.

Through this project, we conduct a policy analysis to assess the potential for agroforestry, especially silvopasture, to be implemented in the state of Georgia, the number one forestry state in the nation.

3 of 20

Technical and Economic Potential

�

4 of 20

Technical Potential

All agroforestry systems require many management inputs to maximize efficiency
Different agroforestry systems create more favorable conditions for crop production and quality
Practices can reduce GHG by sequestering carbon in soil and biomass

Figure from 'Windbreaks in the United States: A systematic review of producer-reported benefits, challenges, management activities and drivers of adoption', 2021

Figure from 'Chapter 3: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Accounting'

https://www.fs.usda.gov

All the differnt types of agroforestry practices require many management inputs to maximize the efficieny

So for example, In silvopastures, this includes access to fresh water and fencing plans to prevent overgrazing.

Another example, In Windbreaks, this involves analysis of location, oreintation to the wind, height, width, and more to determine the benefits

These systems can create more favorable conditions that enhance field and orchard crop production

Windbreaks can improve crop quality and marketability by reducing damage caused from windblown particle abrasion, and reduce the spread of crop disease, to name a few.

Alley cropping can reduce water erosion and soil water loss, all while diverifying organic material, improving soil fertility, and crop growth

There are so many more benefits of agroforestry that could be listed, but we are limited in time

Agroforestry can also reduce Greenhouse gas emissions, bu This will be talked more in depth about in the next section by Troy.

But in short, there are mulitple GHG mitigations that include sequestering carbon in soil and biomass, or other carbon sinks

The picture on the bottom lefts shows the increase in different crop yields from a farm that was protected from windbreaks.

So we see that all crops had an increase in production, but the rate of increase was different based on each crop

The other picture shows estimated carbon sequestion rates for different land uses.

5 of 20

Economic Potential and Analysis

Efficiency objective of agroforestry: Optimize use of all available resources to enhance the sustainable economic development of farms and communities
Use of Capital Budgeting to compare alternates that use different inputs and produce different outputs

Net Present Value
Soil Expectation Value
Annual Equivalent Value

Figure from 'Economics of Agroforestry', pg 190, 2014

wp = woody perennial output, ac = annual crop output, c = optimal combination of wp and ac

The goal of agroforestry is to optimze the use of all available resources to ehnance the economic development of farms and communities

This means that meeting the efficiency objective requres the social marginal benefits to outweigh the social marginal costs.

The net benefits must also be equal or greater than those from identical investments in alternative land use.

The picture on the bottom shows a Production possibility frontieer graph. Ideally you want to be in the optimal combination of woddy pernnial output, which is just trees or plants, and the annual crop output. This is point C on the graph

The iso-revenue line is the rate at which 2 goods can be exchanged,or the market price. Landowners want to reach the highest possible iso-revunue line, so income is maximized

Capital budgeting is also a leading factor in agroforestry adoption. This is the comparison of alternatives that utilize different inputs and produce different outputs.

The most common tools in Capital budgeting are Net preset value, which is the sum of the discounted net revenues over a certian time frame.

If the Net preset value is higher for agroforestry than for all other alternaives, it can be adopted.

Soil Expectation value calculates the net return per unit of land, assuming he regime will be repeated without a certain maturity date

Annual equivalent value is the Soil expectation value times the intrest rates. This is useful when comparing agroforestry to systems such as agriculture, where yearly returns are the standard.

6 of 20

Emissions Reduction

�

7 of 20

Emissions Reduction: Carbon Sinks

Reduce GHG emissions by:

Storing in carbon sinks
Capturing in cyclic processes

Oceanic sinks pose risks

Could become too acidic
Cause more harm than good

Land sinks show promise

Geologic, pedologic, biotic
Large potential, low risk

8 of 20

Emissions Reduction: Sequestration Rates

Five main practices:

Riparian Forest Buffers
Forest Farming
Alley Cropping
Silvopasture
Windbreaks

Compared data across studies

Sequestration rates dependent on region

Make estimates from multiple data points

9 of 20

Emissions Reduction: Scaled for Georgia

Developed land expanding

Mostly at cost of cropland

Total land: ~37 million acres
Already #1 forestry state
Opportunities (2012 est.):

~4.1 million acres cropland
~2.6 million acres pasture

Targeted Methods:

Forest Farming
Alley Cropping
Silvopasture

10 of 20

Emissions Reduction: Scaled for Georgia

Method	Sequestration Rate by 2030 (Megatons CO₂e per year)
Method	20% Solution	100% Solution
Alley Cropping & Forest Farming (Loblolly Pines & Hardwoods)	4.24	21.19
Silvopasture	2.80	19.50
Total	7.04	40.69

11 of 20

Inclusion and Equity of Policies

�

12 of 20

Inclusion and Equity of Policies

Distributive and procedural equity
Existing frameworks undermine livelihoods of smallholder farmers
USDA CRP (1985)

Farmers receive a yearly rental payment
72% of CRP funds to moderate-income farm households
71% of total farm program to high average incomes households

HSP Incentives Program and Demonstration Projects
National Agroforestry Policy (NAP) in India

Framework to increase productivity and resilience of smallholders
Access to quality planting material, provide credit and insurance cover for agroforestry practices, develop market structure

A major issue with many policies is their failure to address equity in their framework, including distributive equity and procedural equity. Distributive equity is impacted when agroforestry policies often transfer the burden of responsibility to marginalized people. More specifically, agroforestry policies may undermine the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. Procedural equity ensures that all relevant people can participate effectively in decisions that affect them. However, agroforestry policies often fail to address such power management structures

For example,

Through the Conservation Reserve Program, farmers receive a yearly rental payment where the government pays farmers for implementing agroforestry practices. CRP increases competition for agricultural land, which affects the ability of beginner and low-income farmers to lease and purchase land and the majority of funds were granted to moderate and high average income households

The healthy soils program is composed of the incentives program and demonstration projects. The incentives program provides financial incentives to California’s farmers to implement conservation management practices, such as agroforestry practices. The demonstration projects serve to inform others. This program has been heavily criticized for its lack of inclusion for small-scale farmers and for non-English speakers. Applications must be filled out online, and those who lack resources or access to computers, are unable to complete them or must complete them later when most grants are gone while non-English speakers must either seek outside help or try to navigate an inaccessible application

In contrast, the NAP in India has placed equity at the forefront, seeking to primarily improve the productivity and resilience of smallholder farmers and increase access to materials, resources, as well as developing a market structure that allows them to flourish

13 of 20

Eliminating Barriers in Georgia

Address the burden of low-income households, particularly the structural and racial barriers among communities of color
Equity Conservation Cooperative Agreements

Fund two-year projects
Expand delivery of conservation assistance to farmers who are new to farming, low income, socially disadvantaged or military veterans

McIntosh Sustainable Environment and Economic Development (SEED)

Help underserved farmers implement practices
Engage youth in 24 climate-impacted and economically distressed counties in Georgia through outreach and education

Regional Agroforestry Center (RAFC)

Photo of silvopasture system in Georgia by Mack Evans. Image via U.S. National Agroforestry Center.

When looking to implement agroforestry practices, Georgia must address the burden of low-income households, particularly the structural and racial barriers among communities of color. Georgia has made some strides, but policies remain limited in scope.

Administered by USDA, the Equity Conservation Cooperative Agreements fund two-year projects to expand the delivery of conservation assistance to farmers who are new to farming, low income, socially disadvantaged. Georgia should seek to implement a state-specific version of this policy.

McIntosh SEED works with communities in the south to help historically underserved farmers implement agricultural conservation practices. SEED also engages underserved youth climate-impacted and economically distressed counties in Georgia. However, SEED is not specific to Georgia.

Georgia can provide tax credits or implement lower-income programs to improve equity. States like California offer a model to do so. New policies must also be specific to agroforestry and not just to agriculture.

Eliminating barriers in Georgia promotes clean energy and has the possibility of creating more jobs and supporting economic growth; however, economic, and administrative hurdles must be removed first.

14 of 20

Land Management and Information Policy

�

15 of 20

Land Management Policy

Public Land:

1964 Public Land Law Review Commission

Concluded existing policies lacked sufficient regulation

1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act signed into law by President Ford

Private Land:

Financial Incentives have been used to guide private lands
Environmental Quality Incentive Programs (EQIP)

Incentives land managers to maintain and address natural resource concerns
Initially started at the state level, as of 2022 these programs are available nationwide

Land Management is divided into two primary segments: public and private. Each of these segments have a slightly different set of policies that govern their use for various agroforestry practices. Public land, controlled primarily by the federal government, has two major policies passed that govern its use. First, in 1964 Congress established a Public Land Law Review Commission. This commission concluded that current policies lacked sufficient regulation to deal with mismanagement of public land such as overuse. As a result of this conclusion, President Ford signed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act into law in 1976. Any agroforestry practices on public land would need to comply with this federal law and other state and local laws. Approximately 5.5% of Georgia’s total land area, or just shy of 2 million acres is public land. While much less than some other states, especially in the western US, this amount of land presents a tremendous amount of opportunity to implement agroforestry practices on public land such as afforestation.

For private land, the incentives need to target land owners and managers. For this, there are many financial incentives used to guide how these lands are used. Environmental Quality Incentive Programs, or EQIP, are used to incentives land managers. Set up in 5-to-10-year contracts, EQIP incentivizes these land managers to maintain and address natural resource concerns, including land, water, and air, and improve upon existing conservation efforts. Initially created by each state, these incentive programs are available nationwide as of 2022.

16 of 20

Information Policy

Farmers and Landowners need to be supportive of new policies

Various campaigns seek to inform to gain these key stakeholder's support

India

National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights

United States

Nature Education Knowledge Project
American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture
Various University Support

With approximately 95% of Georgia’s land area being private land, one of the most important aspects of these policies spread information regarding what they are seeking to accomplish, and why the land owners should implement them. There are a few examples both internationally and here in the United States that are already being implemented today. In India, they have implemented a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. In April 2020, the Institute for Human Rights and Business published commentary on this National Action Plan. As this commentary illustrates, success of these kinds of programs and policies hinges on the adoption by not only large corporations and government, but also “micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises”. It is the role of large corporations and government to provide training, awareness and incentives.

In the United States, the policies that have been implemented surround many the same aspects the Institute for Human Rights and Business published in April 2020 regarding training and awareness. There are many examples, including the Nature Education Knowledge Project, American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture, and various universities that are active participants in this training. Most of these training are to help guide individuals on the benefits and to build up knowledge and a sense of personal responsibility to do everything they can to protect the land that surrounds them.

17 of 20

Conclusion

Agroforestry can increase crop yield and sequestration rates
Leading factor to widespread adoption: Capital Budgeting
High potential for net emissions reduction

31.8% net emissions in Georgia

Equity issues are common, but inclusive policies exist
Laws and policies exist to enforce and incentivize practices on both public and private land
Information programs are in-use to educate the public on benefits of agroforestry
Overall, agroforestry has much untapped potential globally

18 of 20

Questions?

�

19 of 20

References

A framework for localizing global climate solutions and their carbon reduction potential

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2100008118#core-r29

Carbon sequestration in agricultural lands:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/assets/documents/research/publications/2010morgancarbon.pdf

Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/assets/documents/research/publications/Schoeneberger_etal_2012.pdf

Project Drawdown

https://www.drawdown.org/sectors/food-agriculture-land-use

Drawdown Georgia: Afforestation & Silvopasture report

https://cepl.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/aaa%20TO%20USE%20Afforestation%2BSilvopasture-10-19-20.pdf

Puri, S; Nair, PKR (July 2004). "Agroforestry research for development in India: 25 years of experiences of a national program". Agroforestry Systems. 61 (437–452 (2004)): 437–438.

doi:10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029014.66729.e0.

USDA Conservation Reserve Program

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

https://sustainableagriculture.net/publications/grassrootsguide/conservation-environment/conservation-reserve-program/

20 of 20

References cont.

Windbreaks in the United States: A systematic review of producer-reported benefits, challenges, management activities and drivers of adoption, Matthew M.Smith, Gary Bentrup, Todd Kellerman, Katherine MacFarland, Richard Straight, Lord Ameyaw, Volume 187, 2021

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X20308933?via%3Dihub

ECONOMICS OF AGROFORESTRY, D. Evan Mercer, Gregory E. Frey, and Frederick W. Cubbage, pg 188 – 209, 2014

https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2014/ja_2014_mercer_001.pdf

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Accounting, Michele Schoeneberger and Grant Domke, pg 43 – 62

https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/gtr/gtr_wo96/GTR-WO-96-Chapter3.pdf

Sullivan, Patrick and Hellerstein, Daniel and Hansen, LeRoy and Johansson, Robert and Koenig, Steven and Lubowski, Ruben N. and McBride, William D. and McGranahan, David A. and Roberts, Michael James and Vogel, Stephen J. and Bucholtz, Shawn, The Conservation Reserve Program: Economic Implications for Rural America (September 2004). USDA-ERS Agricultural Economic Report No. 834

https://ssrn.com/abstract=614511 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.614511